On Sunday, January 27, 2019 03:45:14 PM Ivan Ivanov wrote: > IANAL either but "vsnsdualce" is a lawyer and provided a lot of > information on how the GPL could be revoked. Maybe the laws, e.g. USA > laws, are more powerful than your EULAs and EULA-like stuff. > > If you really would like to find out the truth instead of drinking > kool-aid calming yourself that "nah it can't be revoked because I > wouldn't like that" then please search for "vsnsdualce" "gpl" > messages.
You cc'ed me (which I responded to you privately about), but now I'll expound to say that was not my position -- I merely pointed out that one (?) way to seemingly get around the do not revoke meme would be, as an owner of the software (not the owner of a copy of the software or owner of a license to use the software (unless that license allowed what I'm going to mention)) is to modify the software and issue the new version under different terms. To all: please don't cc me unless there is some good special reason -- it makes me feel that you are somehow personally attributing to me (or arguing with me?) about something in the post. regards, Randy Kramer > My personal point of view, which may be incorrect because IANAL, is > that the forced introduction of Code of Conducts was quite similar to > one-sided modification of license agreement and should render it > invalid. > > Best regards, > Ivan Ivanov >