That may be OpenBSD policy, but it is not the law.
Your OpenBSD policy cannot bind the copyright holder of the works you
distribute.
It's also an incorrect statement of the law.
If the copyright holder did not receive consideration/payment/etc from
you: you have no interest to bind him with.
lol, you people are idiots. In a time where you can and will be fired
and ruined for ticking the wrong box, rescinding your code from a
project such as the linux kernel will just blackball you from the
entire industry forever. For good reason too. I wouldn't play with
someone who takes the
Band together as a Bloc and take action together. (Bloc revocation).
One practice note: do not send a cease-and-desist before-hand.
Do not let your lawyer send a cease-and-desist before-hand.
If a potential defendant knows that their liberties regarding a
copyrighted work is in question
from
The GPL is not revocable despite not being a contract. It is a license
to distribute software and you cannot revoke the license on already
existing publications. All you can do is revoke the license on future
publications.
1014527
Without an attached interest you can very well revoke the
Notice the detractors always simply say "NO u can't do this!" or "No u
can't do this because this belongs to this group!".
While I explain where your rights come from, their history, and their
extent.
Detractors say "This is like when Author, after being payed millions,
tries to revoke an
1016160
Everybody else in the SFConverancy and the LKML disagree, a software
distribution license is non-revocable.
Yes, and they are wrong.
All the programmers in the LKML are indeed wrong in what they believe.
The non-lawyer* at the SFConverancy is indeed wrong in what he believes
1016160
The difference between you and them is that you believe that the GPL
requires consideration between licensee and grantor to be revocable.
Everybody else in the SFConverancy and the LKML disagree, a software
distribution license is non-revocable.
Incorrect. The SFConverancy tries to
Often cited now is a ZDNet article as proof that the black-letter law is
wrong.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-happens-if-you-try-to-take-your-code-out-of-linux/
In there is quoted:
In 2008, Pamela Jones at Groklaw remarked to an earlier attempt to take
code out of the kernel, "[You]
1016132
I also refuted the SFConservancy's "debunking" within 5 hours, on the
LKML, of it's publishing its attempted defense of the GPLv2 (they were
trying to misconstrue a clause in the GPLv2 as a promise by the grantor
not to revoke, which it was not. A promise, even if it existed, the
If you have a contract to distribute software complete with
non-revocable interest, then there is absolutely no need for an extra
license on top
of that to distribute the software. The contract would define the terms
of distribution and the software license would be meaningless to define
>the
Hendrik Boom, are you a lawyer?
No? How about you shut your fucking mouth about things you have no clue
of?
Sound like a plan, ignorant lay person?
Below is an explanation of just how it is a violation of the
rights-holder's grant. The courts are not fooled by "clever" verbiage
written up
Original Message
Subject: Re: [DNG] 2 months and no response from Eben Moglen - Yes you
can rescind your grant. -- The CoC regime is a License violation -
Additional restrictive terms
Date: 2018-12-24 16:24
From: vnsnda...@memeware.net
To: d...@lists.dyne.org
Version 2 of
1013746
If you think that rescinding the GPLv2 is possible why don't you do it
:^)
You do realize that a license pertains to the licensed article, do you
not?
Do you imagine that the goal is to "blanket rescind all licenses using
the GPLv2 verbiage"? Is that it? Are you that stupid a lay
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license
grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
FromR0b0t1
To gentoo-u...@lists.gentoo.org
Cc ubuntu-us...@lists.ubuntu.com
, debian-u...@lists.debian.org, d...@lists.dyne.org
Reply-To
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their
license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
FromR0b0t1
To gentoo-u...@lists.gentoo.org
Cc ubuntu-us...@lists.ubuntu.com
, debian-u...@lists.debian.org, d...@lists.dyne.org
Reply-To
Thank you for your insight.
It is a shame that there were no responses. They ignored your post, then
kept baying at me: "no this is wrong" "you're not a lawyer" "I will not
lower myself to refute you with arguments!".
As for non-monetary consideration to support an additional no-revocation
It is my intention to inform you of your legal rights.
A license is revocable by the property owner.
Others are suggesting to you otherwise. They are being disingenuous.
With both Linux and BSD there is no attached interest (no one paid you)
There is no detrimental reliance (you never promised
A license is revocable absent an attached interest.
He who pays nothing, receives nothing.
You paid nothing to Owner X.
Owner X may rescind the license he has granted to you.
A license is a temporary grant, not a transfer.
It's good that you got an opinion from an additional party.
The programmers swear they know better than I on this subject.
In a previous debate on the subject, the programmers decided that the
fact that they followed the license was "consideration", even though
without the permission from the
Their take is that if you lent (licensed) them a lawnmower and told them
not to wreck it, the fact that they did not wreck it entitles them to
keep the lawnmower forever(they followed your instruction regarding the
use of your property: "thus consideration, thus irrevocable license").
They
20 matches
Mail list logo
