Re: Why is no one discussing this anymore?
Waiting quietly for two months for Eben Moglen's preliminary write-up (which I was to be sent to "correct") got me no-where. Every seems to have concluded that the issue is settled since there was no more public discussion. All the "other side" said was "nuh-uh" and "you're not a lawyer" (false: I am) and "you deserve to be in prison , isn't practicing law without a license a crime!" (I have a license), and "I'm sure RMS would have made sure the license was not revocable" (he required everyone to sign over their copyright to his foundation... guess why...). Along with "This Artistic License Case decided the AL was not a contract, it was simply a copyright license!! SO THERE!!" (AL is not the GPL... but... the finding in that case helps me, why are you citing it?). (They wisely did not cite the printer driver case where the court looked at the offer to do (paying) business and decided that their was an offer and acceptance based on that other additional writing... since that one isn't on point at all except for the fact that one of the options in that writing was a choice of a GPL licensed work if you didn't want to pay a commercial fee. (The contract there was the other writing giving the option: Pay and get more rights, don't pay and here's the GPL), so at-least there's that.) Being nice did nothing but harm the case of the truth in the eyes of the people however. The guys on the DNG list (Steve Litt I believe) are the ones that want me jailed... On 2018-12-27 20:37, Paul Stuffins wrote: Are you idiots aware Insulting people is not the right way to get your point across! ___ freebsd-c...@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Why is no one discussing this anymore?
Why is no one discussing this anymore. It's like you just accepted the "NU UH U WRONG" proclamation from programmers. Are you idiots aware that programmers DO NOT KNOW THE LAW simply by virtue of being "smarts"? Are you idiots aware that I am a lawyer, I have studied the law, and I do know more than the programmers on this issue (note: I'm also a programmer too... but for something useful... like games :) ) Are you idiots aware that Eben Moglen (drafter of the GPLv3 (not 2, Linux is under 2)) has NOT made good on his pledge to publish a report on how I'm wrong and let me "correct" him where he got it wrong. Why do you think that is? That in 2 months nothing. It's because, as a relative who's worked in the field for many decades said: he's full of shit. Anything he publishes would just undermine the stance he's taken. The license IS recindable at the will of the 1000s of grantors. Any one of them could shake the tree.
Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
(2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made, because of (1))... I have not made legal mistakes, pompous programmer asshole*. A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable at will. This goes for GPLv2 as used by linux, just as it goes for the BSD license(s). The only entities who have, with regards to BSD, an attached interests are perhaps those companies who pay for its development. Non-gratis (paying) customers may have some refuge under consumer protection statutes, for current versions they have in their posession, paid for by good consideration. Everyone else has NOTHING. Do you understand that? In the case of the 1000's of linux copyright holders to whom no consideration was given by an entity, and the various BSD copyright holders (read: the programmers), who have not ASSIGNED their copyright over to some other entity, there is NOTHING to hold them to a promise THEY NEVER MADE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NEITHER THEY NOR YOU HAVE PROMISED NOT TO ELLECT TO USE YOUR AS-OF-RIGHT OPTION TO RESCIND YOUR GRATUITOUS LICENSE REGARDING YOUR WORK. One cannot rely on a promise that was never made, additionally many of them were never paid consideration for this non existant promise either. *(Note: I am both a programmer and an attorney, so I know the type) On 2018-12-24 16:01, Raul Miller wrote: (1) Wrong mailing lists - these are not linux mailing lists. (2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made, because of (1))... (3) Anyways, ... people do make mistakes... But, please stop making these mistakes. Thanks, -- Raul On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 10:55 AM wrote: Bradley M. Kuhn: The SFConservancy's new explanation was refuted 5 hours after it was published: Yes they can, greg. The GPL v2, is a bare license. It is not a contract. It lacks consideration between the licensee and the grantor. (IE: They didn't pay you, Greg, a thing. YOU, Greg, simply have chosen to bestow a benefit upon them where they suffer no detriment and you, in fact, gain no bargained-for benefit) As a bare license, (read: property license), the standard rules regarding the alienation of property apply. Therein: a gratuitous license is revocable at the will of the grantor. The licensee then may ATTEMPT, as an affirmative defense against your as-of-right action to claim promissory estoppel in state court, and "keep you to your word". However you made no such promise disclaiming your right to rescind the license. Remeber: There is no utterance disclaiming this right within the GPL version 2. Linus, furthermore, has chosen both to exclude the "or any later version" codicil, to reject the GPL version 3, AND to publicly savage GPL version 3 (he surely has his reasons, perhaps this is one of them, left unstated). (GPLv3 which has such promises listed (not to say that they would be effective against the grantor, but it is an attempt at the least)). The Software Freedom Conservancy has attempted to mis-construe clause 4 of the GPL version 2 as a "no-revocation by grantor" clause. However, reading said clause, using plain construction, leads a reasonable person to understand that said clause is speaking specifically about the situation where an upstream licensee loses their permission under the terms due to a violation of the terms; in that case the down-stream licensee does not in-turn also lose their permission under the terms. Additionally, clause 0 makes it crystal clear that "You" is defined as the licensee, not the grantor. Another issue the SFConservancy's public service announcement chooses to ignore. Thirdly, the SFConservancy banks on the ignorance of both the public and the developers regarding property alienation. A license does not impinge the rights of the party granting the license in a quid-pro-quo manner vis a vis the licensee's taking. A license merely grants permission, extended from the grantor, to the licensee, regarding the article of property that is being impinged. A license is NOT a full nor is it a permanent alienation of the article(property) in question. The impinged property, being under a non bargained-for temporary grant, can be taken back into the sole dominion of the owner - at his election to do so. Now as to the 9th circuit appellate court's decision in Jacobsen v. Katzer . While the court waxes eloquently about opensource licenses, even mentioning the word "consideration" in it's long dicta, when it comes time to make the binding decision the court found that the lower (district) court was in _ERROR_ regarding the application of contract-law principals to the Artistic License, regarding the case, and instructed the lower court to instead construe said license as a Copyright License. The SFConservancy, and Bruce Perens have chosen to: 1) Rely on the dicta. (non-binding - "some things could be contracts - opensource is great") 2) Ignore the
2 months and no response from Eben Moglen - Yes you can rescind your grant.
It has been 2 months. Eben Moglen has published no research. Because there is nothing more to say: The GPLv2, as used by linux, is a bare license. It can be rescinded at the will of the grantor. The regime that the FSF used, vis-a-vis the GPLv2, is essential: copyright transfers to a central repository entity that is sure not to rescind. Linus chose not to adopt this regime. He benefited by greatly increased developer contribution. The price for that windfall was and is the retention of their traditional property rights by the property holders. They can rescind at will. They made no promise nor utterance to the contrary that can be relied upon. They were paid no consideration. There was no meeting of the minds. Additionally the CoC regime itself is a license terms violation, being an additional restrictive term, as explained in the other analysis. (Similar to the GRSecurity license violation) On 2018-10-26 18:31, Eben Moglen wrote: On Friday, 26 October 2018, visionsofal...@redchan.it wrote: You are conflating case law dealing with commercial software and non-gratuitous licenses with the present situation, which would likely be a case of first-impression in nearly any jurisdiction. I think the best procedure would be for me to publish my analysis and for you then to tell me what is wrong with it. What you say here sounds like what a lawyer might say, but isn't. I have been teaching this stuff for about thirty years, so if I am conflating or confusing anything I will be grateful for help in seeing my mistake. The rule for gratuitous licenses is that they are revocable at the will of the grantor. That's not actually "the rule." It sounds like it might be the rule, but it so happens that it's not. When I have given the explanation as I have learned, taught and depended on it, you will be able to show me what I am wrong about. Raymond Nimmer (God rest his soul) was in agreement on this point, vis-a-vis the GPL and similar licenses. You have your Nimmers confused. The primary author of the treatise Nimmer on Copyright (a book about the law, not in itself an authority) was Melville Nimmer. The treatise is continued by his son, David, a fine lawyer with whom I do from time to time politely disagree about something. Ray Nimmer is quite another person. Eben
Re: You removed Weboob package over political reasons? Whole Internet laughs at you
Debian is not ruled by the men who actually write the software, but instead women. Just like in all the anglo-american conquered world. We, the men who actually do work, are treated as the same worker-slaves everywhere. Opensource was a refuge from the worthless cunts (who ban us from having anything good, such as cute young child brides (allowed by YHWH)) but has not been for some time now. Part and parcel of anglo culture: the man is a dog, the wwmmmannn is a Noble. Now that Linus has caved all is lost. But you can always rescind license for your copyrighted works... (as-long as they are a bare license such as the gpl2). Absent an attached interest (ie: someone paying you for use of the work, or relying on your promises): you the rightsholder have the right to rescind at will. GPL v2 lacks such language disclaiming rescission, you made no utterances that one could rely upon to suggest that there would be no rescission, and you were paid no consideration for your work. .: You can rescind, just like any other property license. And yes, I am a lawyer. Men should be free to take girl children as brides and feminism should be eliminated from the earth (just as they seek to eliminate all pro-male cultures in the world) On 2018-12-24 14:58, Default User wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2018, 05:20 Ivan Ivanov 500 comments at Slashdot, >200 at Phoronix and >1000 at linux org ru! See now? When a technical project starts making their decisions over political reasons... rather than technical, it is doomed. Good time to switch to a similar distro with mentally sane leadership, like Devuan. Also what's good about Devuan : Devuan does not use SystemDick as its' init system! SystemD contains 1 million lines of bloated code and lots of vulnerabilities have been found there and countless haven't, also the SystemD creators are arrogant and refuse to fix many discovered security vulnerabilities, to a point where they've been awarded a " Pwnie award " for refusing to fix a critical vuln. That is why I prefer the distros which are using something else as init system: either good old SysV, or something more modern like OpenRC (at Artix Linux) or runit (at Void Linux) , just not systemd! There are only a few such distros left because of Redhat pressure, and luckily Devuan is one of them. If you found Debian as useful before it went nuts then maybe you'd like Devuan, or even some other distros that I mentioned: Artix Linux =Arch with a human face (has GUI + everything configured by default, nice GUI package manager and convenient to use even for the beginners), and Void Linux -amazingly fast distro really suitable for old PCs, but lacks some packages so you'd need to compile the things from source once in a while, in comparison Artix has almost the same set of packages as Arch. Both Artix and Void are very stable despite their packages are really new and they are among the first to get new Linux kernels with fresh drivers. Or maybe MX Linux, one of the top popularity distros nowadays which is also "no systemd" and somehow only recently I learned about it Best regards, Ivan Ivanov, open source firmware developer How ridiculous that some pathetic questionable would spend their precious time on Earth censoring package names which contain the character string "boob". Sad.
