Re: DMCA takedown notice
My publishing of these notices on my long-held sourceforge account,
along side the download link is sufficient for a reasonable person
to conclude that I, the author of the program, am the issuer of the
This is the very spot that the John Doe has obtained the work.
Secondly it is my exclusive right, as the copyright holder, to control
the distribution of the work as I see fit, and to control the creation
and distribution of derivatives of the work.
I have chosen to do so in rescinding the license of the John Doe.
An exclusive right of mine has been violated by the John Doe subsequently,
and with notice of the revocation.
A license, that is not supported by an interest, is revocable in the
United States of America. An interest attaches when a licensee pays
the copyright holder for the receipt of a license, or transmits valuable
bargained-for consideration to the copyright holder. Absent such an attached
interest there exists only a revocable-at-will bare license.
Here the John Doe did neither, and does not hold an attached interest
with which to bind me to any supposed promise. Any such promise is illusory.
Additionally, the acknowledgement and assent regarding a per-existing
legal duty is not valid consideration.
The url you link to advances a false legal theory unsupported under US Jurisprudence.
In the Artifex v Hancom cited by proponents of the "GPL is a contract (and always a contract)" view much is made of this proclamation by the lower court in the 9th circuit:
>"Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint, provides that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not obtain a commercial license."
This is patently false. The GPL contains no such language, The offer to do business on the plaintiff's website (regarding the Artifex case) DOES contain such language The court conflates that language into "the GPL" in this case. The GPL, in fact, declares the the user does not have to agree to any of it's terms.
I invite you to consult this learned treatise:
In addition to ENFORCING THE GNU GPL by Sapna Kumar (page 16)
Legal Implications of Open-Source Software by David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
All of which explain in concise terms, easily understandable by the lay person, why the GPL is revocable from non-paying licensees.
I am an attorney, and I reiterate my demands.