
Host agrees to DMCA takedown of GPL'd work after Author rescinds license - gitnews
https://gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/blob/master/DMCA%20Takedown%20Notice.txt
======
LeoSolaris
I get the feeling the FSF may have a thing or two to say about this. If it was
possible to simply rescind the license from GPL code, there would have been
several court cases that would have been muuuuuch shorter.

Simply put, once the GPL license is applied, authors can only relicense future
versions. Anyone can fork old versions and start their own development branch
under a different name. The GPL also does not provide restrictions allowing
authors to terminate the license for individuals while still maintaining the
code as available as GPL.

------
Arnt
That name is familiar... google finds this old HN threadlet:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3163841](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3163841)

------
DoctorOetker
emphasize the public's interest in the GPL license? emphasize the interest of
all contributors that spend time on modifications?

------
tomohawk
This is why we can't have good things.

------
gitnews
[https://gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-
Slots-2/blob/master/DMCA%20T...](https://gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-
Slots-2/blob/master/DMCA%20Takedown%20Notice.txt)

[https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/1/843](https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/1/843)

Host agrees to DMCA takedown of GPL'd work after Author rescinds license from
"John Doe". Yes you CAN rescind the GPL.

[https://gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-
Slots-2/blob/master/DMCA%20T...](https://gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-
Slots-2/blob/master/DMCA%20Takedown%20Notice.txt)

In the USA, a license is revocable (absent an attached interest.) (An attached
interest generally arises when a licensee paid for a copyright license
contract. Thus they "buy" the "terms" and the courts will hold the grantor to
the contract. Where there is not an interest, the license is revocable)

To put it simply: you pay nothing, you get nothing. Only the continued
magnanimity of the copyright owner allows you to continue to use, modify,
redistribute the copyright owner's work. If you anger him he may decide to
revoke your bare gratuitous license.

The linux kernel contributors who own the Copyright to their code can do the
same, should they dislike the "CoC" and having their speech controlled by do-
nothings for the sake of women's empowerment over the men who actually built
the whole thing (for free!).

[http://8ch.net/tech/res/1018729.html#q1025891](http://8ch.net/tech/res/1018729.html#q1025891)

\-----

Anonymous 02/01/19 (Fri) 10:32:53 No.1025891>>1025897 >>1025945

Oh fuggggg. Mikee wasn't memeing.

\---- Hi,

We have received a DMCA complaint regarding content that is under your
control. We\u2019ve included the entire DMCA request below: [\u2026] If you
believe you are not infringing you have the ability to file a counter-notice
as per DMCA. A counter complaint requires:

Your name Your address Your email address A digital signature

And statement under penalty of perjury that you have "a good faith belief that
the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or
misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled."

If we do not receive a counter-notice within 48 hours, your account will be
disabled and the content in question removed.

Regards, Cynthia Ng Support Agent, GitLab Inc. \---- \----

~~~
lixtra
If I spend 8h looking into some software, basically paying 1000 USD consulting
fees, does this create an attached interest?

