>>3
A court could see it differently since it is an additional writing.
Previously there never were never writings excluding classes of people.
Now there are.

It's similar, in a way, to prior restraint vs post-publishing action.
Previously there was just the GPL;
Now there is the GPL plus wrightings listing classes of people that are not welcome to develop the software.

Now you might say "that doesn't apply"; however the copyright of the derivatives (which Xonotic is) changes lies with the creators of those additions, edits, annotations. Along with the copyright to the original separable works bundled in the Xonotic distribution.
These writings excluding suspect classes speak to the mindset of the copyright holders.
They also wrote that they do /NOT/ want people like Kitsune to work on the code etc.
Darkplaces wrote the same.

To these works the "no pedophiles" additional writing could apply.
(note: Kitsune was a "furry" but they're calling him a "pedophile", if it matters)

They might be GPL+ works. Just as Linux is GPL+ some exceptions and stipulations.

>>7
>The additional writings thing only works as an appendix to the GPL.
>Their new rule applies to their collaboration infrastructure and those have their own separate contract that govern them.

A court doesn't take as a given that the only terms affecting a Work is License.txt. They don't operate like a program. These extra rules are in writing and presented to anyone looking at the code (they're presented up front).

They explicitly state the opinion of the copyright holders to exclude paedophiles and anti-feminists.
A court could certainly see that as part of the licensing regime.

They are additional writings governing the disposition of the Work.
Yes they are a license(permission). Yes they are in addition to the GPL. Yes the copyright holders can do that.
(even if it would violate the copyright of the work from which some of the project was derived: it's up to the original copyright holder to enforce his original terms against the down-the-line licensee) (the california case challenging this hasn't made it through the courts yet (suggesting 3rd party benificiary standing (under a contract theory of copyright (where an actual good was purchased for sale))))

It is made clear that paedophiles and anti-feminists are NOT permitted to engage with the Linux Kernel, with Xonotic, with Darkplaces, with anything in the opensource world. That rule is actively enforced.

And that is underscored with Kitsune being summerly banned.
Yes this is a licensing change.
And yes it can go beyond "merely" being banned for "the community".
Xonotic and Darkplaces could go to court, should Kitsune continue development, and explain to the court that they do not want Kitsune to have access to their Works.
The Court can then read ALL the wrightings associated with the Work, and come to the conclusion that the no-pedophiles clause is binding. Just because it is not in License.txt is not dispositive.

Additionally: kitsune has no consideration vs Xonotic and Darkplaces: so whatever license he had: isn't worth anything. It can be revoked. And the court could note that it, constructively, has been.

Think of Constructive Eviction, and Constructive Dismissal.

Additionally, both in Xonotic's case, and in Darkplaces, some of the copyright holders evinced that they did not desire paedophiles (such as Kitsune in their mind) to have anything to do with what they were doing at all: and to not be allowed to be associated with their Works at all. That's a license revocation: once they voted on it and acted upon it.

Which they did.

>>7
In a New York Copyright case, a licensee had a bargained-for commercial copyright license without any revocation clause. Never-the-less when the licensor and licensees began to have disagreements and they got so heated as to cause emotive death threats to be uttered: the court found that the copyright license contract was then canceled. They found that the disagreements precluded further existence of the license.

Same thing can apply here with Kitsune.
Do you disagree with the NY court on this?

>>10

> Why do you reply with basically the same message over and over?

I didn't. You have ignored my reference to the NY court.

> You are not even considering or refuting my specific point.

Because it is wrong
>that is, the GPL ("License.txt") ONLY governs the CODE and BINARIES of the project.
"License.txt" is not the only writing stating the intentions of the rights-holders in existence anymore.
You are asserting that it is a fully-integrated (one page) "agreement".
When there are now multiple writings stating the intended disposition regarding the permission the rights holders are granting.
In some of these they state they do not want certain classes of persons to be using their code.

>The GPL cannot be revoked retroactively.
Yes it can be, from a free taker.
Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Cir. 1997);
>("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent consideration."). Where consideration is present, however, the license is irrevocable, and "[t]his is so because a nonexclusive license supported by consideration is a contract.


>Jacobsen v. Katzer
Have you read Jacobsen v. Katzer? The 9th circuit appellate court ruled that the Artistic License was /not/ a contract, and was instead a simple copyright license. It found that the lower court erred in construing the Artistic License as a contract, and reversed the lower courts finding: telling the lower court that the Artistic License is not a contract.

That is, if anything, supportive of the "revokists" position.

>>14

> not the author, but can't consideration also be immaterial?

No. Go FUCK yourself.

> the publisher of GPL software is giving you software (material good)

No they are not. They are granting permission to use and distribute their Copyrighted Work. They are not giving you anything.

> and the consumer of the GPL software is given the publisher the promise of following the GPL

No: you do not have an independent right to use or distribute the Work.
You have a pre-existing duty to follow US Copyright law.
You are granted permission by the Copyright holder to distribute the work and use the work
YOU DO NOT HAVE A FUCKING INDEPENDENT RIGHT TO FUCKING DO SO. DO YOU GET THAT ZOOMER F_UCKING_ FAGGOT?

Ofcourse not.

Now this permission is limited. The limits on that permission are stated in the memorandum (GPL): that it is not to be distributed if one is preventing others from doing so down the line etc. You DO NOT have a prior right to distribute or use AT ALL.

So: for these LIMITED permissions (up from _NO___ PERMISSION AT FUCKING ALL) you have given:

1) Nothing
And according to you
2) A Promise to follow Copyright Law.
Which fails because that is a pre-existing duty.

FAGGOT FUCK.

>>14
>Artifex v. Hancom
Have you read Artifex v. Hancom? In Artifex, a lower court decision in the 9th circuit, the court failed to properly identify the GPL, instead confusing "The GPL" with the preliminary offer to do business which gave the prospective licensee an option of a paid proprietary license contract or the GPL. The court in Artifex gave the copyright holder the option of proceeding on a contract law claim of damages, with regards to the offer of the proprietary license contract OR (but not both) to proceed on a federal copyright violation claim for violation of the GPL copyright license. If the GPL itself was a contract, the court would require the copyright holder to proceed under a contract law claim only. (They like to limit damages when they can). The parties elected to settle, and the case went no further.

>>14
>and the consumer of the GPL software is given the publisher the promise of following the GPL
Wrong.
The "consumer" is trying to gain the limited permission granted in the GPL. He is not trying to "get" the software. He's trying to get permission that are written in the GPL.

For the limited permissions a License grants (which is what he is trying to get) (the copyright holder is NOT offering the copyright itself (copyright transfer)) usually a licensee will pay money.

YOU DO NOT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT PERMISSION TO "violate" THE LICENSE GRANT.
So you "following" the limits in the grant is not you GIVING anything.

Do you get that, faggot?
DO YOU GET THAT?

No you don't.

-----
Simply: you are trying to buy the permissions listed in the license memorandum.
For this you pay nothing.

You retort that if it weren't for you obeying the license grant; you could distribute, modify, and molest the software in any way you wish.
Which is untrue: Copyright Law grants you zero rights (all rights reserved). And you have a pre-existing duty to follow it.

-----
Simpler:
A little girl child has a flute.
Should you rape her? And take her flute?

Because you promise not to rape her and enslave her as a bride: you are entitled to that flute. Consideration has been paid.
According to you.

But is it so?