On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 12:58:16PM +0200, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Il 07/08/19 12:23, Mihai Moldovan ha scritto:
> >> - include in the announcement that any party objecting must contact
> >> the developers at BLAH (email list address, or list of developer
> >> email addresses)
> > That's not the way this stuff works. You have to assume objection
> > UNTIL given permission.
So you say. Your saying so does not make it true.
Actually, no, --I-- do not have to assume objection util given
permission.
That might trigger your personal sensibilities, but that is not
meaningful to me, except that you bring a legal action against me
personally.
> > I wonder if that would be a fitting metaphor: a burglar justifying
> > his actions by giving the sleeping original occupants an ample amount of
> > time,
> > say, 10 minutes, to answer the question if they'd be okay with him taking
> > valuables. Since they haven't responded, he assumed that it's fine to
> > proceed.
> > More tongue-in-cheek, naturally, but still somewhat fitting.
>
> Agreed.
Not agreed - not a reasonable metaphor.
A reasonable metaphor might be a maker space or some other public
space where some object has been anonymously left, and is being used
e.g. as a portable bench, then at some point in time, it becomes
apparent that the object is in fact a flying contraption, and folks
wonder whether or not they "have permission from the maker" to use
the contraption to fly beyond the walls of the maker shed, and
someone decides yes they do, but hey, let's put up a public notice
and give any possible objectors a few months to object.
> There is no way to obtain tacit permission for anything
Another completely unsubstantiated assertion.
> except what the copyright holder has already declared (except for
> copyright expiration, but that takes veeery long). In order to
> relicense, explicit permission must be given by each of the
> copyright holders.
OK. Perhaps a misunderstanding - to the extend that existing code
authors have provided valid contact means (email, post etc), then
attempt to contact them and provide the (1 or say 2 year relicensing
notice) must be made, or prima facie our public duty of care has not
been met.
Any intention to bypass the will of those who wish to make their will
known, is a prima facie undermining or bypassing of the will of those
who wish to make their will known (in relation to their own code).
Making all reasonable efforts to contact all copyright holders, is
part of the Public Notice legal mechanism, and part of our general
duty of care to be respectful of one another in the current statutory
regime that most of the West operates with...
> Exceptions can possibly be made for trivial
> contributions by reasoning that they are so simple that they cannot
> be considered copyrightable, but that's a very risky way.
Risky exactly how ??
> If some copyright holder (or their heirs) cannot be contacted or do
> not agree,
Conflation is a classic obfuscation technique which you might advise
yourself to not use. Here you have chosen to conflate two utterly
distinct legal (and legally relevant in the circumstances) concepts:
- copyright holders not able to be contacted
- copyright holders expressing their actual objection
> their contributions must be removed and possibly rewritten,
... and thus your conclusion is like a hand waving - having
intertwined two entirely separate circumstances in the conflation you
used, this next part ("must be removed") is a misleading and leading
assertion, which for legally robust discussion must be extracted from
the conflation - your assertion "must be removed" might be fully or
partially relevant for one of your conflated cases, for both of your
conflated cases, or for neither of your conflated cases, or some
partial combination.
Trying to "make the discussion go away" by use of such conflation is
not useful to clear thinking/ clear communication.
> and again this entails a lot of risk, because it's on those who are
> relicensing to prove that they removed all the contributions by
> such copyright holder and that what was written to patch the
... and the follow on is also problematic due to the prior
conflation.
"A lot of risk" is also non quantified and not even hinted at.
"Time cost" risk to untangle things in the future might be a
reasonable risk.
"Potential legal court case" might, or might not, be a financial
risk.
There might be other possible risks or costs, in either, or other of
the cases at issue - e.g. reputation.
> removal is actually independent.
>
> Giovanni.
Regarding tacit consent, the government, and e.g. the Federal Reserve
banks use tacit consent against us in morally corrupt ways all the
time. The government passes a "law" and it "is taken to be"
sacrosanct, unviolable, and any challenge must be by lawyers and
massive legal court cases that go all the way to the highest courts
on constitutional grounds, and this is the only way to challenge.
That's the myth which unfortunately prevails - and when folks wish to
exercise their rights individually and such living/ exercise of
rights is in opposition to a statute law, usually pay with a
government paid for court case against themselves.
And so the government, or rather the administration (the third arm)
get their nefarious statute created monopolies on many things - the
production of cotton and the suppression of hemp (for an old example)
- the banning of alcohol and other drugs at different times, creating
extremely lucrative black markets, the mandatory requirement in
certain jurisdictions to ensure your children attend the local
government brainwashing facility known as schools.
Corporations use tacit consent regularly too - Uber gets going in a
new city, and they assume the right to operate in the face of the
existing laws about Taxi cabs etc, and build they user base quickly
enough that by the time any court case gets going, they can have
financial, legal and government clout to get the laws changed - but
until that change happens, they operate under TACIT CONSENT - tacit
consent of the people, and tacit consent of the government.
Just because we are normally not taught about tacit consent, does not
mean that tacit consent does not exist, or is not used on a daily
basis all over the planet.
