Timeline for Are licenses irrevocable by default?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 29, 2022 at 5:55 | comment | added | Kaz | Moreover, the document is confusing and contradictory. The summary at the beginning says things like "Rather, Defendants' alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create liability for copyright infringement where it would not otherwise exist." But section IV says "Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable copyright conditions, we remand to enable the District Court to determine whether Jacobsen [...]". | |
| Sep 29, 2022 at 5:54 | comment | added | Kaz | i don't find that the cited case is relevant to the question, because the plaintiff didn't revoke any public license. He took some license violators to court, claiming that their violations amount to copyright infringement. The court didn't reject the plaintiff's claims; the case was remanded. | |
| Feb 21, 2022 at 15:03 | comment | added | Matthew Whited | You are also going to want to not make blanket statements as it is possible for the person that submitted the code to not have legal authority to do some. | |
| Jun 25, 2020 at 12:00 | comment | added | Peter Moore | Two problems (at least) with relying on the Jacobsen case - (1) Federal Circuit opinions in areas of copyright law have almost no precedential value because it is extremely rare for copyright cases to reach them; and (2) the opinion has nothing to do with revoking an existing license. Engaging in armchair lawyering on this or any other topic is a dangerous game. | |
| Oct 26, 2018 at 9:49 | comment | added | GoodDeeds | Perhaps a stupid question: what does "consideration involved" mean? | |
| Jul 18, 2016 at 23:02 | comment | added | Zizouz212 | Wow! The judgment from the case is a pretty good read. Also, I edited your post to define what CAFC is - if the court has a different name, please edit it as such. One other thing, is that you could make this answer even more worthy of the bounty if you could quote various sections of that judgment and expand on the answer (hint hint) :) | |
| Jul 18, 2016 at 23:00 | history | edited | Zizouz212 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 41 characters in body |
| Jul 18, 2016 at 18:08 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | This is a great answer; I learned a lot. My only recommendation is to include the relevant section about consideration directly in the answer here, which begins with: "Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however..." (May I bribe you with a small bounty? :)) | |
| Jun 15, 2016 at 23:30 | vote | accept | congusbongus | ||
| Jun 14, 2016 at 2:54 | history | answered | Todd Knarr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |