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
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
(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
uous publication)
(Note: If you would like to read a nice discussion on the topic, here
is
one
http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf
)
On 2018-10-25 08:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +, visionsofal...@redchan.it
&g
8-10-25 08:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +, visionsofal...@redchan.it
wrote:
The linux devs can rescind their license grant.
No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information.
greg k-h
On 2018-10-29 22:31, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
On T
h-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +, visionsofal...@redchan.it
wrote:
The linux devs can rescind their license grant.
No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information.
greg k-h
On 2018-10-29 22:31, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26A
h-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +, visionsofal...@redchan.it
wrote:
The linux devs can rescind their license grant.
No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information.
greg k-h
On 2018-10-29 22:31, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26A
h-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +, visionsofal...@redchan.it
wrote:
The linux devs can rescind their license grant.
No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information.
greg k-h
On 2018-10-29 22:31, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26A
Has the analysis been published yet?
I have been away on an artistic sabbatical, but I don't see it in the
inbox using searches, this was the last mail I received on the subject.
On 2018-10-26 18:31, Eben Moglen wrote:
On Friday, 26 October 2018, visionsofal...@redchan.it wrote:
You are
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:12 AM NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25 2018, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Theodore Y. Ts'o :
> >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 03:39:01PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> >> > Under Jacobsen vs. Katzer (535 f 3d 1373 fed cir 2008) authors of
> >> > GPLed software have a
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:12 AM NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25 2018, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Theodore Y. Ts'o :
> >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 03:39:01PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> >> > Under Jacobsen vs. Katzer (535 f 3d 1373 fed cir 2008) authors of
> >> > GPLed software have a
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +, visionsofal...@redchan.it wrote:
> The linux devs can rescind their license grant.
Greg KH responded on Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:19:11 +0100:
>> No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information.
I was explicitly cc'ed on th
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +, visionsofal...@redchan.it wrote:
> The linux devs can rescind their license grant.
Greg KH responded on Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:19:11 +0100:
>> No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information.
I was explicitly cc'ed on th
On Sun, Oct 28 2018, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
>
>> Al,
>>
>> Can you please, even in the face of comments you find irritating, keep
>> your responses more civil? Calling someone a "wankstain" is
>> unprofessional
>
> Tim,
>
> to be completely honest,
On Sun, Oct 28 2018, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
>
>> Al,
>>
>> Can you please, even in the face of comments you find irritating, keep
>> your responses more civil? Calling someone a "wankstain" is
>> unprofessional
>
> Tim,
>
> to be completely honest,
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 03:46:02PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> The anonymous person is generally thought to have appeared on the net
> previously as MikeeUSA. That entity has a well-recorded history of misogyny
> and other anti-social behaviour.
You are misreading it - behaviour of that...
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 03:46:02PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> The anonymous person is generally thought to have appeared on the net
> previously as MikeeUSA. That entity has a well-recorded history of misogyny
> and other anti-social behaviour.
You are misreading it - behaviour of that...
Bruce Perens :
> The anonymous person is generally thought to have appeared on the net
> previously as MikeeUSA. That entity has a well-recorded history of misogyny
> and other anti-social behaviour. He's also complained to me recently that
> because of "people like me", the law prohibits him from
Bruce Perens :
> The anonymous person is generally thought to have appeared on the net
> previously as MikeeUSA. That entity has a well-recorded history of misogyny
> and other anti-social behaviour. He's also complained to me recently that
> because of "people like me", the law prohibits him from
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
> Al,
>
> Can you please, even in the face of comments you find irritating, keep
> your responses more civil? Calling someone a "wankstain" is
> unprofessional
Tim,
to be completely honest, communicating anonymously doesn't really match my
"this
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
> Al,
>
> Can you please, even in the face of comments you find irritating, keep
> your responses more civil? Calling someone a "wankstain" is
> unprofessional
Tim,
to be completely honest, communicating anonymously doesn't really match my
"this
> -Original Message-
> From: Al Viro
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 06:52:44AM +, visionsofal...@redchan.it wrote:
> > Al: the FSF was so insistent on the adoption of the GPL version 3
> > because the GPL version 2 is not operative against the grantor.
>
> Anonymous wankstain: sod off
> -Original Message-
> From: Al Viro
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 06:52:44AM +, visionsofal...@redchan.it wrote:
> > Al: the FSF was so insistent on the adoption of the GPL version 3
> > because the GPL version 2 is not operative against the grantor.
>
> Anonymous wankstain: sod off
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 06:52:44AM +, visionsofal...@redchan.it wrote:
> Al: the FSF was so insistent on the adoption of the GPL version 3
> because the GPL version 2 is not operative against the grantor.
Anonymous wankstain: sod off and learn to troll properly. It *is* an art
form, and the
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 06:52:44AM +, visionsofal...@redchan.it wrote:
> Al: the FSF was so insistent on the adoption of the GPL version 3
> because the GPL version 2 is not operative against the grantor.
Anonymous wankstain: sod off and learn to troll properly. It *is* an art
form, and the
Lawrence Rosen is also in agreement on this point (regarding the GPL v2
specifically).
It is revocable at the will of the grantor, at any time.
(He writes that if a licensee-contributor was to sue a grantor, then
would be a good time to unilaterally rescind: disposing of the matter
entirely)
Lawrence Rosen is also in agreement on this point (regarding the GPL v2
specifically).
It is revocable at the will of the grantor, at any time.
(He writes that if a licensee-contributor was to sue a grantor, then
would be a good time to unilaterally rescind: disposing of the matter
entirely)
Al: the FSF was so insistent on the adoption of the GPL version 3
because the GPL version 2 is not operative against the grantor.
This deficiency was, in their eyes, so fatal to the purposes that they
envisioned that they, as you have pointed out, elected to employ
enhanced means of converting
Al: the FSF was so insistent on the adoption of the GPL version 3
because the GPL version 2 is not operative against the grantor.
This deficiency was, in their eyes, so fatal to the purposes that they
envisioned that they, as you have pointed out, elected to employ
enhanced means of converting
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
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
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
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
On 2018-10-26 13:15, Eben Moglen wrote:
They can do neither. There is no "doctrine established in Jacobsen."
The license terms of the GPLv2, GPLv3, and all related licenses
provide a mode of termination---for imposition of additional
restrictions or violation of other terms. This termination
On 2018-10-26 13:15, Eben Moglen wrote:
They can do neither. There is no "doctrine established in Jacobsen."
The license terms of the GPLv2, GPLv3, and all related licenses
provide a mode of termination---for imposition of additional
restrictions or violation of other terms. This termination
On Friday, 26 October 2018, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Eben Moglen :
> reputational damage is *specifically* recognized as grounds for relief.
>
> No. Reputational damage is not mentioned at all, let alone
> specifically recognized.
I have no difficulty in finding the word
On Friday, 26 October 2018, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Eben Moglen :
> reputational damage is *specifically* recognized as grounds for relief.
>
> No. Reputational damage is not mentioned at all, let alone
> specifically recognized.
I have no difficulty in finding the word
Eben Moglen :
> reputational damage is *specifically* recognized as grounds for relief.
>
> No. Reputational damage is not mentioned at all, let alone
> specifically recognized.
I have no difficulty in finding the word "reputation" in the brief in
in proximity with the phrase "increasing
Eben Moglen :
> reputational damage is *specifically* recognized as grounds for relief.
>
> No. Reputational damage is not mentioned at all, let alone
> specifically recognized.
I have no difficulty in finding the word "reputation" in the brief in
in proximity with the phrase "increasing
On Thursday, 25 October 2018, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Under Jacobsen vs. Katzer (535 f 3d 1373 fed cir 2008) authors of
GPLed software have a specific right to relief (including injunctive
relief) against misappropriation of their software. That ruling (which
was the case of first
On Thursday, 25 October 2018, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Under Jacobsen vs. Katzer (535 f 3d 1373 fed cir 2008) authors of
GPLed software have a specific right to relief (including injunctive
relief) against misappropriation of their software. That ruling (which
was the case of first
clearly-disingenuous publication)
(Note: If you would like to read a nice discussion on the topic, here is
one http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf
)
On 2018-10-25 08:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +, visionsofal
clearly-disingenuous publication)
(Note: If you would like to read a nice discussion on the topic, here is
one http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf
)
On 2018-10-25 08:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +, visionsofal
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 10:28:36PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Al Viro :
> > * in case it needs to be spelled out: I am not at all interested
> > in that kind of stunts. One of the reasons I thoroughly despise RMS
> > and his bunch is the leverage game they tried to play with GPLv3;
> >
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 10:28:36PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Al Viro :
> > * in case it needs to be spelled out: I am not at all interested
> > in that kind of stunts. One of the reasons I thoroughly despise RMS
> > and his bunch is the leverage game they tried to play with GPLv3;
> >
Al Viro :
> * in case it needs to be spelled out: I am not at all interested
> in that kind of stunts. One of the reasons I thoroughly despise RMS
> and his bunch is the leverage game they tried to play with GPLv3;
> damned if I'm going to lower myself to their level.
Sorry, I did not mean
Al Viro :
> * in case it needs to be spelled out: I am not at all interested
> in that kind of stunts. One of the reasons I thoroughly despise RMS
> and his bunch is the leverage game they tried to play with GPLv3;
> damned if I'm going to lower myself to their level.
Sorry, I did not mean
El jue, 25-10-2018 a las 16:47 -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o escribió:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 03:39:01PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> >
> > Under Jacobsen vs. Katzer (535 f 3d 1373 fed cir 2008) authors of
> > GPLed software have a specific right to relief (including
> > injunctive
> > relief)
El jue, 25-10-2018 a las 16:47 -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o escribió:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 03:39:01PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> >
> > Under Jacobsen vs. Katzer (535 f 3d 1373 fed cir 2008) authors of
> > GPLed software have a specific right to relief (including
> > injunctive
> > relief)
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 05:41:23PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> I do not have any facts with which to dispute this specific claim.
> However, I do notice that a significant number of long-time
> contributors have put themselves in the anti-CoC camp. I note Al Viro
> as a recent example.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 05:41:23PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> I do not have any facts with which to dispute this specific claim.
> However, I do notice that a significant number of long-time
> contributors have put themselves in the anti-CoC camp. I note Al Viro
> as a recent example.
On Thu, Oct 25 2018, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> NeilBrown :
>> I think you are blurring two groups here.
>> Ted describes "anti-CoC dissidents" as people who are advancing an
>> argument about rescinding their license. This is a smaller groups than
>> the "ant-CoC camp" who don't really like the
On Thu, Oct 25 2018, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> NeilBrown :
>> I think you are blurring two groups here.
>> Ted describes "anti-CoC dissidents" as people who are advancing an
>> argument about rescinding their license. This is a smaller groups than
>> the "ant-CoC camp" who don't really like the
NeilBrown :
> I think you are blurring two groups here.
> Ted describes "anti-CoC dissidents" as people who are advancing an
> argument about rescinding their license. This is a smaller groups than
> the "ant-CoC camp" who don't really like the CoC. I suspect is it is a
> much smaller group when
NeilBrown :
> I think you are blurring two groups here.
> Ted describes "anti-CoC dissidents" as people who are advancing an
> argument about rescinding their license. This is a smaller groups than
> the "ant-CoC camp" who don't really like the CoC. I suspect is it is a
> much smaller group when
On Thu, Oct 25 2018, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Theodore Y. Ts'o :
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 03:39:01PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>> > Under Jacobsen vs. Katzer (535 f 3d 1373 fed cir 2008) authors of
>> > GPLed software have a specific right to relief (including injunctive
>> > relief)
On Thu, Oct 25 2018, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Theodore Y. Ts'o :
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 03:39:01PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>> > Under Jacobsen vs. Katzer (535 f 3d 1373 fed cir 2008) authors of
>> > GPLed software have a specific right to relief (including injunctive
>> > relief)
Theodore Y. Ts'o :
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 03:39:01PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Under Jacobsen vs. Katzer (535 f 3d 1373 fed cir 2008) authors of
> > GPLed software have a specific right to relief (including injunctive
> > relief) against misappropriation of their software. That ruling
Theodore Y. Ts'o :
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 03:39:01PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Under Jacobsen vs. Katzer (535 f 3d 1373 fed cir 2008) authors of
> > GPLed software have a specific right to relief (including injunctive
> > relief) against misappropriation of their software. That ruling
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 03:39:01PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> Under Jacobsen vs. Katzer (535 f 3d 1373 fed cir 2008) authors of
> GPLed software have a specific right to relief (including injunctive
> relief) against misappropriation of their software. That ruling (which
> was the case of
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 03:39:01PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> Under Jacobsen vs. Katzer (535 f 3d 1373 fed cir 2008) authors of
> GPLed software have a specific right to relief (including injunctive
> relief) against misappropriation of their software. That ruling (which
> was the case of
Greg Kroah-Hartman :
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +, visionsofal...@redchan.it wrote:
> > The linux devs can rescind their license grant.
>
> No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information.
I think the confusion about whether applying GPL can b
Greg Kroah-Hartman :
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +, visionsofal...@redchan.it wrote:
> > The linux devs can rescind their license grant.
>
> No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information.
I think the confusion about whether applying GPL can b
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +, visionsofal...@redchan.it wrote:
> The linux devs can rescind their license grant.
No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information.
greg k-h
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +, visionsofal...@redchan.it wrote:
> The linux devs can rescind their license grant.
No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information.
greg k-h
The linux devs can rescind their license grant. Why don't they if they
don't like the CoC. They did NOT give their code away. They merely
licensed it to people for nothing. Licenses can be rescinded. The
License text itself doesn't even disclaim the possibility of rescission.
All it says
The linux devs can rescind their license grant. Why don't they if they
don't like the CoC. They did NOT give their code away. They merely
licensed it to people for nothing. Licenses can be rescinded. The
License text itself doesn't even disclaim the possibility of rescission.
All it says
69 matches
Mail list logo
