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.
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
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-Togentoo
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 3:12 PM wrote:
> ... pompous programmer asshole*.
I think you are projecting your own personality in your perception of
others (which is a natural thing to do - everyone does that to some
degree).
That said, I am going to filter your messages to my spam bucket from now on
(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 a__hole*.
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
(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
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
Your 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 benef
Your 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 benef
9 matches
Mail list logo