Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
Hi, i'm not replying to the trolls (or their off-topic rants) in this thread, and i'm not spamming other project's lists. Instead, i'd merely like to clarify a point that is actually on topic on this list, to avoid that users get confused by FUD. One of the trolls wrote: > 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). That is not what /usr/share/misc/license.template means, and i'm sure all OpenBSD developers are aware of that. The OpenBSD website makes the meaning very explicit: https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html [...] Finally, releases are generally binding on the material that they are distributed with. This means that if the originator of a work distributes that work with a release granting certain permissions, those permissions apply as stated, without discrimination, to all persons legitimately possessing a copy of the work. That means that having granted a permission, the copyright holder can not retroactively say that an individual or class of individuals are no longer granted those permissions. Likewise should the copyright holder decide to "go commercial" he can not revoke permissions already granted for the use of the work as distributed, though he may impose more restrictive permissions in his future distributions of that work. Yours, Ingo
FU: RE: Why is no one discussing this anymore?
zeur here. I now[0] see that a whole bunch of lists were Cc'd, and while I'm not sorry for not preserving the Ccs, I realize that you might not have been addressing us, misc@OpenBSD.org. I still think my point holds, though. This should be a matter of great concern for OpenBSD, like it is to just about every other project relying on licensed code, "open" or not. --zeur. [0] post-coffee-intake =) > This whole discussion is best served elsewhere. -- Friggin' Machines!
RE: Why is no one discussing this anymore?
zeur here. > This whole discussion is best served elsewhere. Yeah, comfortably away from an affected project, for sure! Remember what happened w/ ipf(4)? Now imagine peope getting angry at theo (not an uncommon thing, given his behaviour), and retaliating by revoking their license to crucial portions of kern_proc, or their port's locore? What if the drm(4) developers would suddenly throw a hissy fit and decree that it may only be used in lunix, or that it be placed under a restrictive license? The copyright on some code is helt by corporations (for-profit or otherwise) -- what if *THEY* decide to change their policy? These are real issues. --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines!
RE: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
zeur here. > NOTHING to hold them to a promise THEY NEVER MADE. This is what I've suspected for a long time -- the only solution appears to be the public domain. For jurisdictions were the public domain is not legally recognized (I've been told they exist), a workaround /may/ be to not attach one's name to one's work. IANAL. --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines!
Re: Why is no one discussing this anymore?
What is going on here? It seems to me, that I have to stop using my lovely, my the best and my other such the words FreeBSD. Why should I stop? Because of theese stupid, totally political, totally bullshits! Does the FreeBSD dying under those "modern” tolerancy? It was the best system, I really love it. But, what the hell is going on here right now? Is it the end of FreeBSD? You really got ready to kill it on behalth to all this stupid tolerancy and other such the bullshit? But why? Just tell me, why should You like to kill Your the best for the worst? You are IT specialists. You are, probably, the only intelligence on this planet. May be, the only in Universe. What are You doing? Just ask Yourselfe, what are You doing right now. чт, 27 дек. 2018 г., 23:49 Bon Onlines bononli...@gmail.com: > Are you aware we are in the end of year holidays? I recommend you to > not call others as an idiot, as the only idiot here are you ;) > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:31 PM wrote: > > > > 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. > > ___ > > 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" > ___ > 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" >
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"
Re: Why is no one discussing this anymore?
This whole discussion is best served elsewhere. On Thursday, December 27, 2018, wrote: > 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: Why is no one discussing this anymore?
Are you aware we are in the end of year holidays? I recommend you to not call others as an idiot, as the only idiot here are you ;) On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:31 PM wrote: > > 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. > ___ > 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
Error output from ndp -an
I'm using OpenBSD 6.4 on a pcengines apu2 box as a router/firewall for a CenturyLink DSL (pppoe) connection. Today I set up rd6 for ipv6 for the first time, similar to what is described here: https://gist.github.com/afresh1/791343380b4410687d51fdd94f20bd42 Things are working well but one minor issue I notice is when I run "ndp -an" to see ipv6 neighbor info I get an error printed to stderr from ndp: [aaron@apu2] ~$ ndp -an Neighbor Linklayer Address Netif ExpireS Flags ndp: ioctl(SIOCGNBRINFO_IN6): Invalid argument ndp: failed to get neighbor information This is followed by normal ndp output lines so this seems like a very minor bug, but is slightly noisy. Below I am pasting: 1. ktrace output for the "ndp -an" command. Looks like ioctl(SIOCGNBRINFO_IN6) is being called on a SOCK_DGRAM socket. ioctl returns -1 with errno 22 Invalid Argument. 2. ifconfig output 1. ktrace output from "ndp -an" command: 9697 ndp CALL socket(AF_INET6,0x2,0) 9697 ndp RET socket 3 9697 ndp CALL sysctl(4.17.0.0.6.0,0,0x7f7ee808,0,0) 9697 ndp RET sysctl 0 9697 ndp CALL sysctl(4.17.0.0.6.0,0x133e91ee1a00,0x7f7ee808,0,0) 9697 ndp RET sysctl 0 9697 ndp CALL kbind(0x7f7ee7c8,24,0xd76384b171042686) 9697 ndp RET kbind 0 9697 ndp CALL ioctl(3,SIOCGNBRINFO_IN6,0x133c63e05100) 9697 ndp RET ioctl -1 errno 22 Invalid argument 9697 ndp CALL kbind(0x7f7ee7c8,24,0xd76384b171042686) 9697 ndp RET kbind 0 9697 ndp CALL write(2,0x7f7ee050,0x5) 9697 ndp GIO fd 2 wrote 5 bytes "ndp: " 9697 ndp RET write 5 9697 ndp CALL write(2,0x7f7ee140,0x17) 9697 ndp GIO fd 2 wrote 23 bytes "ioctl(SIOCGNBRINFO_IN6)" 2. ifconfig: [aaron@apu2] ~$ ifconfig lo0: flags=8049 mtu 32768 index 5 priority 0 llprio 3 groups: lo inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff00 em0: flags=8843 mtu 1500 lladdr 00:0d:b9:4b:17:10 index 1 priority 0 llprio 3 media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT full-duplex) status: active em1: flags=8843 mtu 1500 lladdr 00:0d:b9:4b:17:11 index 2 priority 0 llprio 3 media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT full-duplex,rxpause,txpause) status: active inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 inet6 fe80::813b:5c49:d64b:f9fc%em1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2 inet6 2602:d8:a032:2200::1 prefixlen 64 em2: flags=8802 mtu 1500 lladdr 00:0d:b9:4b:17:12 index 3 priority 0 llprio 3 media: Ethernet autoselect (none) status: no carrier enc0: flags=0<> index 4 priority 0 llprio 3 groups: enc status: active pppoe0: flags=8851 mtu 1492 index 6 priority 0 llprio 3 dev: vlan201 state: session sid: 0x25d PADI retries: 4 PADR retries: 0 time: 04:57:57 sppp: phase network authproto chap groups: pppoe egress status: active inet 216.160.50.34 --> 207.109.2.20 netmask 0x vlan201: flags=8843 mtu 1500 lladdr 00:0d:b9:4b:17:10 index 7 priority 0 llprio 3 encap: vnetid 201 parent em0 groups: vlan media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT full-duplex) status: active pflog0: flags=141 mtu 33136 index 8 priority 0 llprio 3 groups: pflog gif0: flags=8051 mtu 1472 index 9 priority 0 llprio 3 groups: gif egress tunnel: inet 216.160.50.34 -> 205.171.2.64 ttl 64 nodf inet6 fe80::e39e:d302:d26:902f%gif0 -> prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x9 inet6 2602:d8:a032:2200::1 -> prefixlen 24
Re: ports/devel/pygame make install error
> >> i have openbsd 6.4 release installed > >> how do i fix this ? Don't mix release with current ports. Either install a current snapshot or ... > doas cvs -d anon...@anoncvs1.ca.openbsd.org:/cvs -q up -Pd -A > rm -rf /usr/ports And checkout a release ports tree. See the FAQ for instructions. > shadrock >
Re: ports/devel/pygame make install error
On 12/27/18 3:48 AM, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > shadrock uhuru writes: >> hi everyone >> >> i have openbsd 6.4 release installed >> >> when i try to make install ports/devel/pygame i get an error stating >> >> create /usr/ports/packages/amd64/all/py-game-1.9.3.tgz >> error: Libraries in packing-list in the port tree >> and libraries from installed packages don't match >> >> how do i fix this ? > As the error message says, the library versions you have installed > don't match the library versions in your checked out ports tree. > So update your ports tree and packages to -current. > > The remainder of the output (that you cut out) shows which exact > libraries are out of sync on your system. i have updated the packages with doas pkg_add -u but when updating the port tree with the following command doas cvs -d anon...@anoncvs1.ca.openbsd.org:/cvs -q up -Pd -A i was continually getting - packet_write_wait: Connection to 129.128.197.20 port 22: broken pipe but changed repository and manage to complete the update but i still get the following error Create /usr/ports/packages/amd64/all/py-game-1.9.3.tgz Error: Libraries in packing-lists in the ports tree and libraries from installed packages don't match --- /tmp/dep_cache.riRhLvqpZ/portstree-py-game-1.9.3 Thu Dec 27 14:58:48 2018 +++ /tmp/dep_cache.riRhLvqpZ/inst-py-game-1.9.3 Thu Dec 27 14:58:48 2018 @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ -W SDL_mixer.5.0 -W SDL_ttf.8.1 -W X11.16.1 --W jpeg.70.0 +-W jpeg.69.0 -W png.17.5 -W pthread.25.1 -W freetype.29.0 *** Error 1 in . (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:3248 'wantlib-args') *** Error 1 in . (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2014 '/usr/ports/packages/amd64/all/py-game-1.9.3.tgz') *** Error 1 in . (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2475 '_internal-package') *** Error 1 in . (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2454 'package') *** Error 1 in . (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2027 '/var/db/pkg/py-game-1.9.3/+CONTENTS') *** Error 1 in /usr/ports/devel/pygame (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2454 'install') shadrock
