In article <[email protected]> you write: >Resending to the list -- I didn't notice that Ivan had sent this to me only, >and my reply, of course, then went to him only. > >On Sunday, January 27, 2019 10:06:46 AM Ivan Ivanov wrote: >> Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare >> license and is revocable by the grantor. Search for "vsnsdualce" "gpl" >> online to find his messages which prove that, he is a lawyer and has >> investigated this subject very well. I am CC'ing him in case you'd >> like to request more information. So if you didn't like the Code of >> Conduct covertly accepted behind the scenes against your will, and >> maybe some other questionable political decisions in technical >> projects > >> (e.g. the recent removal of useful "weboob" package which >> have been a part of Debian for 8 years but got removed just because >> some mad SJWs suddenly got offended at its' name) - well you know what >> to do, and maybe vsnsdualce will be happy to help with your case free >> of charge.
Ranting about SJWs? Check. Ignore this person. >I *might* go read some of the stuff by vsnsdualce, but the Weboob situation is >not an example of a (free or GPL) license being rescinded. (You didn't quite >say it was, but one could infer that is what you are trying to say by its >inclusion in the same paragraph.) > >Whatever license and rights conveyed by that license still exist, but Debian >(not the copyright owner) has decided no longer to include that in what they >distribute. > >You can still get the Weboob package from other sources (unless they all >disappear) and use the Weboob package in accordance with the license terms for >the package you find. Right. This is an irrelevant side-argument. >Just another aside: One of my takes on lawyers is that they interpret laws and >take legal positions for various reasons, often to further their own or their >client's interests, and then are willing to fight the legal battle that may >ensue. A lawyer expressing an opinion does not make that opinion correct / >legal. Correct. Lawyers' opinions are typically estimates of what *might* happen, informed by their training and background. Until there is precedent from actual cases, there's not much more to go on. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [email protected] Who needs computer imagery when you've got Brian Blessed?
