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 this thread by visio
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 addition
It has been 2 months. Eben Moglen has published no research.
Because there is nothing more to say: The GPLv2, as used by linux, is a
bare license. It can be rescinded at the will of the grantor.
The regime that the FSF used, vis-a-vis the GPLv2, is essential:
copyright transfers to a central
Redhat has achieved "governance" over the Linux(TM), via systemd and the
Code of Conduct.
You, contributors, are now treated as employees.
They are confident that you will not assert your property rights, since
you attack those who do (See: Netfiter saga), and take it as an honour
to sign doc
It has been 2 months. Eben Moglen has published no research.
Because there is nothing more to say: The GPLv2, as used by linux, is a
bare license. It can be rescinded at the will of the grantor.
The regime that the FSF used, vis-a-vis the GPLv2, is essential:
copyright transfers to a central
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 this thread by visio
Redhat has achieved "governance" over the Linux(TM), via systemd and the
Code of Conduct.
You, contributors, are now treated as employees.
They are confident that you will not assert your property rights, since
you attack those who do (See: Netfiter saga), and take it as an honour
to sign doc
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 addition
In a prior public statement, Bruce Perens put forth a legal theory where
users of a certain piece of Software would be liable for contributory
copyright infringement*[1]. This statement, specifically the
pronouncement of such damages reachable, is predicated on a pure
copyright License theory r
In a prior public statement, Bruce Perens put forth a legal theory where
users of a certain piece of Software would be liable for contributory
copyright infringement*[1]. This statement, specifically the
pronouncement of such damages reachable, is predicated on a pure
copyright License theory r
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 addition
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 addition
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 this thread by visio
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 co
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 pr
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 addition
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 pr
Yes they can, greg.
The GPL v2, is a bare license. It is not a contract. It lacks
consideration between the licensee and the grantor.
(IE: They didn't pay you, Greg, a thing. YOU, Greg, simply have chosen
to bestow a benefit upon them where they suffer no detriment and you, in
fact, gain no
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 is tha
20 matches
Mail list logo
