4 ms·

No, but the clause in that license is gross. He can sue any of his users at any time if he decides he doesn't want them to be his users anymore. It's by Zed Sha

No, but the clause in that license is gross. He can sue any of his users at any time if he decides he doesn't want them to be his users anymore. It's by Zed Shaw author of Learn Python the Hard Way, I'm surprised by this. In any case it looks like Lamson has not been updated since 2013. The clause: The copyright holder reserves the right to revoke this license on anyone who uses this copyrighted work at any time for any reason.

drharby 8y ago
>I didnt think infinity wars was THAT good. REVOKED!
dragonwriter 8y ago
Ironically, that clause might have no effect in US law; not because a license with it fails to be revocable, but because gratuitous licenses are revocable at will as a matter of law, anyway. (Then again, it might mitigate the likelihood that a court would limita the licensors recovery after revocation based on the principle of promissory estoppel.)
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  Section 2 of the GPLv3 explicitly declares itself irrevocable provided the terms are complied with. I said something similar about this the other day, but: for all the things I dislike about the GPL family of licenses, this is a fundamental design goal of the GPL: nobody, not even the original creator, is supposed to be able to pull the rug out from under you once you've received something under the GPL. If I had to guess, I'd guess that's why Salmon says it forked from a GPLv3 release of Lamson.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Section 2 of the GPLv3 explicitly declares itself irrevocable provided the terms are complied with. Yes, it does say that. That doesn't actually override a law which makes it revocable at will irrespective of it's terms—the license is governed by the law, not vice versa. Whether the GPLv3 is a gratuitous license probably depends on the circumstances of licensing in a particular case and not the text alone—its certainly possible for it to be a contract license instead, but it's not, AFAIK, clearly one in the general case.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      Lots of sites that handle user-generated content have, in their terms, an irrevocable license grant to allow them to reproduce and distribute your submitted content. Try revoking one of those and suing a site for infringement on grounds that it's impossible to grant an irrevocable license, and let me know how it turns out for you.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Lots of sites that handle user-generated content have, in their terms, an irrevocable license grant to allow them to reproduce and distribute your submitted content. Those are not gratuitous licenses granted by the rights holder, they are contract licenses in which the license are part of the exchange for services the site operator is providing for user. > Try revoking one of those and suing a site for infringement on grounds that it's impossible to grant an irrevocable license, I never said it's not possible to grant an irrevocable license. I said gratuitous licenses are revocable at will as a matter of law. I expressly noted that free software licenses are not, in all circumstances, a gratuitous.
        jcrben 8y ago
        But you never actually cited any law. Is this in a Restatement? Contract law is typically state level.
hellosputnik 8y ago
Why are you surprised? Zed Shaw is notorious for being belligerent.
ianwalter 8y ago
I bet I'm going to get downvoted for this, but how is this gross? It's his work. He should be able to license it however he wants. If you are worried about him revoking the license then don't use it. He's under no obligation to provide you with software. https://zedshaw.com/archive/why-i-algpl/ https://zedshaw.com/archive/why-i-algpl/
- ppseafield 8y ago
  What's the point of even having the BSD license if it could simply just be revoked at will?
  - ianwalter 8y ago
    Just because it can doesn't mean it will. Personally, I find Zed to be a reasonable person, so I would use lamson without worrying that the "rug will be pulled out from under me". It seems to me that Zed felt that he had been taken advantage of from users of his open source software in the past and this is simply a provision to guard against that. Whether you agree with his reasoning or not, it's not fair to just dismiss it and assume malicious intent. Imagine you tell your neighbors they can use your pool so long as they act responsibly otherwise their access would be revoked. You're not going to spell out every little thing that they can/cannot do. You'd just hope that they'd use common sense and revoke their access if they do something you find intolerable. Imagine your neighbor responding to this offer, "Uhh yea, that's not going to work for me. I want unrevokable access." Ridiculous right?
    - wpietri 8y ago
      This is not a very good analogy. You know your neighbors and have a complicated mutual relationship which provides safeguards against malicious or capricious behavior. Whereas the author of a chunk of open-source code is just one of 28 million randos with a GitHub account. A rando who you will now have to investigate carefully if you want to be reasonably confident he won't jerk the rug out from under you. As far as I can tell, nobody assumed it was malicious, so maybe you can put that straw back in storage.

drharby 8y ago

>I didnt think infinity wars was THAT good. REVOKED!

dragonwriter 8y ago

Ironically, that clause might have no effect in US law; not because a license with it fails to be revocable, but because gratuitous licenses are revocable at will as a matter of law, anyway. (Then again, it might mitigate the likelihood that a court would limita the licensors recovery after revocation based on the principle of promissory estoppel.)

ubernostrum 8y ago
Section 2 of the GPLv3 explicitly declares itself irrevocable provided the terms are complied with. I said something similar about this the other day, but: for all the things I dislike about the GPL family of licenses, this is a fundamental design goal of the GPL: nobody, not even the original creator, is supposed to be able to pull the rug out from under you once you've received something under the GPL. If I had to guess, I'd guess that's why Salmon says it forked from a GPLv3 release of Lamson.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Section 2 of the GPLv3 explicitly declares itself irrevocable provided the terms are complied with. Yes, it does say that. That doesn't actually override a law which makes it revocable at will irrespective of it's terms—the license is governed by the law, not vice versa. Whether the GPLv3 is a gratuitous license probably depends on the circumstances of licensing in a particular case and not the text alone—its certainly possible for it to be a contract license instead, but it's not, AFAIK, clearly one in the general case.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    Lots of sites that handle user-generated content have, in their terms, an irrevocable license grant to allow them to reproduce and distribute your submitted content. Try revoking one of those and suing a site for infringement on grounds that it's impossible to grant an irrevocable license, and let me know how it turns out for you.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Lots of sites that handle user-generated content have, in their terms, an irrevocable license grant to allow them to reproduce and distribute your submitted content. Those are not gratuitous licenses granted by the rights holder, they are contract licenses in which the license are part of the exchange for services the site operator is providing for user. > Try revoking one of those and suing a site for infringement on grounds that it's impossible to grant an irrevocable license, I never said it's not possible to grant an irrevocable license. I said gratuitous licenses are revocable at will as a matter of law. I expressly noted that free software licenses are not, in all circumstances, a gratuitous.
      - jcrben 8y ago
        But you never actually cited any law. Is this in a Restatement? Contract law is typically state level.

hellosputnik 8y ago

Why are you surprised? Zed Shaw is notorious for being belligerent.

ianwalter 8y ago

I bet I'm going to get downvoted for this, but how is this gross? It's his work. He should be able to license it however he wants. If you are worried about him revoking the license then don't use it. He's under no obligation to provide you with software. https://zedshaw.com/archive/why-i-algpl/ https://zedshaw.com/archive/why-i-algpl/

ppseafield 8y ago
What's the point of even having the BSD license if it could simply just be revoked at will?
- ianwalter 8y ago
  Just because it can doesn't mean it will. Personally, I find Zed to be a reasonable person, so I would use lamson without worrying that the "rug will be pulled out from under me". It seems to me that Zed felt that he had been taken advantage of from users of his open source software in the past and this is simply a provision to guard against that. Whether you agree with his reasoning or not, it's not fair to just dismiss it and assume malicious intent. Imagine you tell your neighbors they can use your pool so long as they act responsibly otherwise their access would be revoked. You're not going to spell out every little thing that they can/cannot do. You'd just hope that they'd use common sense and revoke their access if they do something you find intolerable. Imagine your neighbor responding to this offer, "Uhh yea, that's not going to work for me. I want unrevokable access." Ridiculous right?
  - wpietri 8y ago
    This is not a very good analogy. You know your neighbors and have a complicated mutual relationship which provides safeguards against malicious or capricious behavior. Whereas the author of a chunk of open-source code is just one of 28 million randos with a GitHub account. A rando who you will now have to investigate carefully if you want to be reasonably confident he won't jerk the rug out from under you. As far as I can tell, nobody assumed it was malicious, so maybe you can put that straw back in storage.