Fwd: 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
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 the GPL forbids the incorporation of additional restrictive terms, relating to the distribution, modification, etc of the article licensed under the terms. Those that violate this section are declared, by operation of the terms, to have their grant automatically revoked. An additional term need-not be present in the same writing. Such terms simply need to be present to or made known to the taker(sub-licensee) by the distributor. They may be proffered in writing, orally, or implied in the course of doing business dealings. They simply must relate back or involve the article in question (the licensed code or product.) The proffering of additional restrictive terms is a violation of the text of the license grant in and of itself. Here we have a situation where an additional writing has been proffered. The additional writing promises both in it's own text and by implication consequences against those who violate the terms of this additional writing. The additional writing restricts those subject to it from expressing certain views publicly - promising retribution against those who do. No consideration is paid to those subject to the additional writing for their assent; it is simply imposed unilaterally against the subjects. The violators of the additional writing are promised: Additional, unwanted, public scrutiny (to which they were not subject to prior) Public ridicule. Loss of public standing. as-well as an implied loss of future income. These are the enforcement mechanisms of the additional writing to enforce its restrictions against those who publish derivative works of the kernel. The additional writing is activated when (with the prerequisite of being a derivative work of the linux kernel) the work of a rights-holder is incorporated into the kernel, when such a work is made known to the kernel-team to exist where any one person on this earth has seen fit to present it for inclusion, or by simple prior-inclusion into the kernel. Thus all current and past rights-holders who have code in, or have published for distribution, derivative works of the kernel are subject to the retributive promises made to them in the additional writing, drafted to restrict their actions and utterances. This is tantamount to an additional restrictive term regarding the modification and distribution of works under the linux kernel license grant. It is a violation of the license terms of the rights-holders past incorporated works in much the same way that GRSecurity's Contributor Access Agreement was and is. ___ Dng mailing list d...@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
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
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 by laypersons such as yourself and such as the drafter of the CoC. They see things for what they are. Hendrik Boom wrote: Actually, no. It has no effect on what you can do with your copy of the Linux kernel. It just restricts your ability to participate fully in its development. But you can continue to use, modify, and distribute your copies as much as before, as provided by the license. -- hendrik Version 2 of the GPL forbids the incorporation of additional restrictive terms, relating to the distribution, modification, etc of the article licensed under the terms. Those that violate this section are declared, by operation of the terms, to have their grant automatically revoked. An additional term need-not be present in the same writing. Such terms simply need to be present to or made known to the taker(sub-licensee) by the distributor. They may be proffered in writing, orally, or implied in the course of doing business dealings. They simply must relate back or involve the article in question (the licensed code or product.) The proffering of additional restrictive terms is a violation of the text of the license grant in and of itself. Here we have a situation where an additional writing has been proffered. The additional writing promises both in it's own text and by implication consequences against those who violate the terms of this additional writing. The additional writing restricts those subject to it from expressing certain views publicly - promising retribution against those who do. No consideration is paid to those subject to the additional writing for their assent; it is simply imposed unilaterally against the subjects. The violators of the additional writing are promised: Additional, unwanted, public scrutiny (to which they were not subject to prior) Public ridicule. Loss of public standing. as-well as an implied loss of future income. These are the enforcement mechanisms of the additional writing to enforce its restrictions against those who publish derivative works of the kernel. The additional writing is activated when (with the prerequisite of being a derivative work of the linux kernel) the work of a rights-holder is incorporated into the kernel, when such a work is made known to the kernel-team to exist where any one person on this earth has seen fit to present it for inclusion, or by simple prior-inclusion into the kernel. Thus all current and past rights-holders who have code in, or have published for distribution, derivative works of the kernel are subject to the retributive promises made to them in the additional writing, drafted to restrict their actions and utterances. This is tantamount to an additional restrictive term regarding the modification and distribution of works under the linux kernel license grant. It is a violation of the license terms of the rights-holders past incorporated works in much the same way that GRSecurity's Contributor Access Agreement was and is.
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
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
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
