[gentoo-user] Re: Why is no one discussing this anymore?
Real name pls, if want to be taken somewhat serious? Thank you. So where my logic cannot be attacked, my person may be instead? Do you think me a fool, simply because you do not know what you do not know (the law), yet think you do (an attribute of many programmers: know one field, know them all!)? I've explained the law again and again. But here it goes: Under the copyright statute, copyrighted works are alienable in all the ways property is. You can sell, transfer, and license etc. Copyright comes into existence the moment your work is placed in a fix form. The copyright is owned by the progenitor (you the programmer) until such time as you transfer it (ex: to an employee by way of employment agreement stating such terms), or you die (now your descendants own the rights), or you or your descendants elect to use the "claw-back" provisions in the US copyright act some decades after the work was fixed. You, both BSD programmers, and Linux kernel programmers have elected to neither sell nor transfer in other ways your copyrights. Instead you have chosen to license your works. A license is a temporary grant. Under property law it can be rescinded when the property owner wishes to do so. Unless, the property owner has been payed to forgo that right. That is: if the property owner has been payed by the licensee to promise that he will not rescind the license, then if the property owner elects to rescind the license the court may estop the property owner from doing so because the licensee has payed the owner FOR that right. Equivalent exchange, if you will. (But the court does not look to if the consideration was... equivalent, just that there was an exchange of some consideration (read: money, goods, services) and a meeting of the minds (both parties ment to do this)) In the case of most linux and BSD licensees nothing has been payed by them to the programmers(you the copyright holders) to induce a forbearance of the underlying rights of the property owners. Thus the original default rights still stand. You can rescind at will. Additionally, you have never promised that you would forego the utilization of your property rights, so there is no promise anyone could reasonably rely upon to estop you from utilizing said rights. Additionally, Licensee "E" did not pay you for that non-existent promise either. You are not bound. You may rescind. You now know why the FSF requires programmers to assign all copyrights to it. You now know why Eben Moglen remains silent these last two months. I am correct, yes I am a lawyer, and yes anything he speaks further would simply show the weaknesses in his (magnanimously) taken position in trying to fool the Programmers into thinking they have forfeited rights they have not. On 2018-12-27 21:53, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: On 27/12/2018 21:30, vsnsdua...@memeware.net wrote: Real name pls, if want to be taken somewhat serious? Thank you. Why is no one discussing this anymore. You don't discuss anything in the first place: You just spam mails with claims without any reproducible proof. And since we are here on a techie-list, said proofs should be techie-understandable - it's not that techies adjust to non-techies if it goes in the other direction. It's like you just accepted the "NU UH U WRONG" proclamation from "Proof by claim"? I don't think so Are you idiots [...] Are you idiots aware that I am a lawyer[...] Are you idiots [...] Interesting "qualities" of communication are apparently in order for (alleged) lawyers in your part of the world. MfG, Bernd PS: Sry for feeding the troll- won't happen anymore, it's only spam after all ...
[gentoo-user] Re: A lawyer?!
Your initial argument, as I imagine you ment to communicate (a single negation, rather than the double negation you proffered) hits a snag: I am a licensed attorney. "You ain't no lawyer, buddy" Your double negatives speak the truth: I am a licensed attorney. "you're a clueless halfwit" I'm sure my intellect is half that of someone somewhere. "clueless" Incorrect, I have informed you of the law, and my analysis is correct. the likes of which I've seen innumerable times in my years with Linux Many lawyers perhaps begged the linux copyright holders to stop playing fast and loose with the law and their licensing regime. Their advice, of-course, was rejected, and their patches rejected by linus. One attempted patch (the GPLv3) very publicly so. I'd ask when you're planning on moving out of your mom's basement, but, really, we already know the answer to that: never. I notice that the nobles of europe, those that were not murdered, are still in the possession of their inherited lands, while you americans are poor as you constantly divide you wealth in your quest to be "real men". (You also murder anyone who likes cute young girls, in that same quest). I'd tall you to grow up, but that ship has clearly sailed. I'm quite tall already. Enjoy your wage slave life though :) While you were slaving away, being a MhrrAhhN I attended law school, graduated, acquired my license, studied more, programmed videogames, studied more, built 3d architecture, studied more, did RL architecture, studied more, etc. And had parties every other week with my friends. While you pursued the goals of a real man. On 2018-12-25 12:50, f...@fuckyou.net wrote: Hahahahahaha! You ain't no lawyer, buddy -- you're a clueless halfwit, the likes of which I've seen innumerable times in my years with Linux. The Libertarian/Men's Rights morons who circle jerk themselves to no end over on r/TheDonald. I'd ask when you're planning on moving out of your mom's basement, but, really, we already know the answer to that: never. I'd tall you to grow up, but that ship has clearly sailed.
[gentoo-user] Re: FU: RE: Why is no one discussing this anymore?
I was addressing OpenBSD as-well, I chose the lists to CC to: linux lists and BSD, since the underlying concerns are the same. It took slightly longer to find the appropriate openbsd list, infact, so you definitely weren't CC'd by accident. On 2018-12-27 22:54, leo_...@volny.cz wrote: 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, m...@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.
[gentoo-user] Re: Thank you for your insight.
Thank you for the response, though I feel you don't address my question. Happily though, I spoke with an acquaintance and it was determined that the subservience to the license (i.e. agreeing to be bound by the GPL2) could not be offered as consideration as its restrictions were not the licensee's to offer at the time of acceptance of the license. The licensee had no rights to offer as part of the contract, as the contract had not yet given them any rights to give up. The terms put forth by the GPL2 are only restrictions that are part of the license. Furthermore, as stated above, it should seem quite self referential - I can't offer my acceptance of a license as consideration, because it is what I am trying to accept. As I am sure you are aware, under US law there is no contract if both sides have not provided consideration. This leaves us in the strange place of gratis licenses being suggestions. Cheers, R0b0t1 On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 12:47 PM wrote: > > Thank you for your insight. > > It is a shame that there were no responses. They ignored your post, then > kept baying at me: "no this is wrong" "you're not a lawyer" "I will not > lower myself to refute you with arguments!". > > As for non-monetary consideration to support an additional no-revocation > term: > Many of the old linux-kernel (programmer)rights-holders have received > nothing, and have made no such promise. > Many of the contributors (who did not transfer their rights) have > received nothing. > > There is nothing to uphold the contention that they have forfeited their > default right to rescind license to their property. > They never made such a promise, they were never paid for such a promise, > they never contracted for such, etc. > > They wrote code, licensed it gratuitously, > and now an attempt is being made to both control their speech, their > action, and to basically convert their property. > > Most of the entities who have been licensed the works have neither paid > anything to the various rights-holders, > nor have they ever contacted nor been contacted by the various > rights-holders, etc. >
