Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #204726 > unrolled thread

Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 01:30 +0100
    Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 01:40 +0100
      Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-28 10:30 +0100
        Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 12:00 +0100
          Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-01-28 13:30 +0100
            Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 14:00 +0100
              Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-01-28 15:10 +0100
              Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-01-28 16:20 +0100
                Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 17:50 +0100
            Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-01-28 14:20 +0100
              Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-01-28 15:30 +0100
        Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 16:10 +0100
    Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?# Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-01-28 11:40 +0100
      Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?# Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-28 12:10 +0100
    Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2019-01-28 13:40 +0100

#204726 — Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?

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.

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.

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#204727

On Sunday, January 27, 2019 07:24:17 PM rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> 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

...
 
> 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.)

Ok, I went and read a few things by "vsnsdualce" re the GPL, in particular:

http://readlist.com/lists/gentoo.org/gentoo-user/42/213256.html

And from that, I went to:

https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4

It seems clear that this is one of those things that I talked about in my 
previous last paragraph (the aside, still quoted below) -- vsnsdualce is 
stating his opinion / taking a position that is in opposition to the postions 
/ opinions of other lawyers.

I don't know how far he is willing to go to try to confirm his position, but 
until a court case or something similar (and probably appeals) decides the 
issue, there are two opinions.

If I had to guess / be which would prevail, I would bet on the side of 
copyleft.org who, in a way are the successors (mcow) to the original author(s) 
of the GPL.  (And Bradley Kuhn is a lawyer -- my older mind can't remember if 
he was the lawyer who argued (and lost) a previous free software case (don't 
remember the details) in front of the US Supreme Court.  (Sometimes referred 
to as "the supremes", but they don't really sing that well (well, to be fair, 
I guess I never heard them sing ;-)

Even if he was the guy that lost that case (I'm fairly sure it was someone 
else), he is certainly a very experienced lawyer, and very familiar with the 
issues around this license.  I would trust his opinion more that I would 
"vsnsdualce"'s.

...

> 
> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204738

On 2019-01-28, rhkramer@gmail.com <rhkramer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.

Earthshaking! (Editor's note: there exist lawyers who are not amoral shysters
and who even devote themselves to just causes.)

I guess the following is pertinent:

https://hackaday.com/2018/09/27/can-you-take-back-open-source-code/

 REPUTATIONAL LOSSES
 So if a developer is free to license their code in diametrically opposed ways
(simultaneously closed and open source), and it’s acknowledged that in the
 absence of a Contributor License Agreement they retain the uncontested
 ownership of any code they write, the situation becomes tricky. Does it not
 follow that they have the right to walk back a promise to make their source
 code open, if a scenario presents itself in which the author feels it’s no
 longer appropriate?

 Eric S. Raymond, one of the founders of the Open Source Initiative and author
 of The Cathedral and the Bazaar believes they may have that right. In a post to
 the Linux Kernel Mailing list, Eric specifically addresses the threat some
 developers have made about attempting to pull their code from the kernel:

  First, let me confirm that this threat has teeth. I researched the relevant
  law when I was founding the Open Source Initiative. In the U.S. there is case
  law confirming that reputational losses relating to conversion of the rights of
  a contributor to a GPLed project are judicable in law. I do not know the case
  law outside the U.S., but in countries observing the Berne Convention without
  the U.S.’s opt-out of the “moral rights” clause, that clause probably gives the
  objectors an even stronger case.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/23/212

Anyway, it appears there's a new Linux CoC (providing for a "harassment-free
experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity,
sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience,
education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race,
religion, or sexual identity and orientation"), Linus is stepping aside to work
on his relational problems (with regrets for being a dyed-in-the-wool asshole
all these years), and, well, all hell has broken loose.

I'm uncertain how this all articulates into a coherent whole. Apparently the
worry (or threat?) is a disgruntled hacker (doubtless one of the old male
dinosaurs), ejected for violating the new LGBT-friendly CoC, might rescind the
license grant for his code (a prospect Raymond doesn't find judicially
implausible).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204741

On 2019-01-28 09:21, Curt wrote:
<snipped>

  these years), and, well, all hell has broken loose.
> 
> I'm uncertain how this all articulates into a coherent whole. 
> Apparently the
> worry (or threat?) is a disgruntled hacker (doubtless one of the old 
> male
> dinosaurs), ejected for violating the new LGBT-friendly CoC, might 
> rescind the
> license grant for his code (a prospect Raymond doesn't find judicially
> implausible).

I did try to comprehend all of the GPL at one time and found it very 
tricky to navigate.
Think the upshot is you can sell it or give it away but you have to make 
the source available and include this license.
So I guess you would have to go back to the people wrote the older bits 
of code that was released under the GPL and any new stuff that 
includes/is based on the older code and doesn't work without is covered 
by the GPL.
ie you can sell it or give it away but you have to make the source 
available and include this license.

mick

-- 
Key ID    4BFEBB31

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204743

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:55:39AM +0000, mick crane wrote:

[...]

> I did try to comprehend all of the GPL at one time and found it very
> tricky to navigate.

I've been following this thread, and I think the GPL is much simpler
than that:

 (1) use: always
 (2) share (i.e. give to others, distribute, pack up in a bigger distro):
   you are bound by the GPL, that means you've to make the source
   available to your recipients, give them the same GPL rights)
 (3) modify: as soon as you distribute modified versions, you've to
   make those available under the same terms as the GPL.

Of course, if you own the copyright to the software itself (there's no
such thing as to "own" "the software", viz. this term is so ambiguous
as to be worthless), i.e. you wrote it, you paid someone to write it
under a contract which gives you the copyright, etc., then you're not
that much bound by (3). This is e.g. the basis for such things like
the combined licenses, where the copyright owner has a commercial
variant for those (presumably paying) customers who don't want to
be bound by the terms of the GPL. Ghostscript [1] is a prominent
example.

The trick with (2) is that you, as a "receiver" of the softare, don't
have any rights to distribute it [2]; you are /granted/ those rights
by the issuer /if/ you comply with the terms of the GPL. This is the
implicit contract you're entering, whenever you /distribute/ the
software (or a modified version).

This is the "copyleft" hack contained in the GPL.

That said, I'm not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on TV.

[1] https://www.ghostscript.com/license.html
[2] That's by plain and simple copyright law.

Cheers
-- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204747

On 2019-01-28 12:27, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:55:39AM +0000, mick crane wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> I did try to comprehend all of the GPL at one time and found it very
>> tricky to navigate.
> 
> I've been following this thread, and I think the GPL is much simpler
> than that:
> 
>  (1) use: always
>  (2) share (i.e. give to others, distribute, pack up in a bigger 
> distro):
>    you are bound by the GPL, that means you've to make the source
>    available to your recipients, give them the same GPL rights)
>  (3) modify: as soon as you distribute modified versions, you've to
>    make those available under the same terms as the GPL.
> 
> Of course, if you own the copyright to the software itself (there's no
> such thing as to "own" "the software", viz. this term is so ambiguous
> as to be worthless), i.e. you wrote it, you paid someone to write it
> under a contract which gives you the copyright, etc., then you're not
> that much bound by (3). This is e.g. the basis for such things like
> the combined licenses, where the copyright owner has a commercial
> variant for those (presumably paying) customers who don't want to
> be bound by the terms of the GPL. Ghostscript [1] is a prominent
> example.
> 
> The trick with (2) is that you, as a "receiver" of the softare, don't
> have any rights to distribute it [2]; you are /granted/ those rights
> by the issuer /if/ you comply with the terms of the GPL. This is the
> implicit contract you're entering, whenever you /distribute/ the
> software (or a modified version).
> 
> This is the "copyleft" hack contained in the GPL.
> 
> That said, I'm not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on TV.
> 
> [1] https://www.ghostscript.com/license.html
> [2] That's by plain and simple copyright law.
> 
> Cheers
> -- t

What I intended to mean was if somebody wants to try to alter (rescind) 
the license they would have to get the agreement of all the previous 
authors whose work, released under the GPL, they used in their code.
Which I can't see happening.

mick

-- 
Key ID    4BFEBB31

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204751

mick writes:
> What I intended to mean was if somebody wants to try to alter
> (rescind) the license they would have to get the agreement of all the
> previous authors whose work, released under the GPL, they used in
> their code.  Which I can't see happening.

"Rescind" implies that the copyright owner can inform people who have
already received copies of the work under the terms of the GPL that the
rights granted to them by the GPL have been revoked and that they are no
longer free to redistribute the work under the terms of the GPL.  This
cannot happen because the GPL contains no clause permitting it.

Think about it. If a copyright owner could revoke licenses arbitrarily
despite the licenses not containing clauses permitting them to do so no
copyright license would be worth anything at all.  Software copyright
licenses (real ones, not the "licenses" that products from Microsoft et
al come with) sometimes do include revocation clauses.  Such clauses
always lay out in great detail the conditions under which revocation is
possible.

A copyright owner can, of course, start distributing copies of a work in
which they own all the copyrights under different terms: this is what
happens when a formerly closed source work is "open sourced".
Obviously, if the work contains stuff in which others own copyright, all
parties must agree to the change.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204754

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:55:15PM +0000, mick crane wrote:

[...]

> What I intended to mean was if somebody wants to try to alter
> (rescind) the license

You'd have to explain what you mean by "rescind" here: the license
to the current version or the one to the future versions. Details
would depend on the license's text. GPLV3 is pretty explicit on
that:

  2. Basic Permissions.

  All rights granted under this License are granted for the term
  of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the
  stated conditions are met.

Any questions?

> they would have to get the agreement of all the previous authors
> whose work, released under the GPL, they used in their code.

This is a whole other kettle of fish, and you shouldn't mix it with
the above -- this will result in impenetrable fog.

This concerns the case when a project wants to change the license:
suppose it is "GPLV2 only" and the project leaders would like to
relicense it to "GPLV3". This would run against the "GPLV2 only"
terms, so it is only possible if /all copyright holders/ agree.

In some cases it's easy (as when there's just one copyright holder)
in others (prominent example: the Linux kernel) each contributor
retains the copyright to her own contribution... a change is
practically impossible. But some (admittedly smaller at that time)
projects have managed to pull that off [1].

The normal case is that when the original authors/company would
like to do something like that, they expect a CLA ("Contributor's
licence agreement") from their contributors (but that has to be
done in advance, of course).

> Which I can't see happening.

Sometimes it happens (see OSM example below)

Cheers

[1] https://blog.openstreetmap.org/tag/license-change/
-- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204763

On 2019-01-28 15:14, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:55:15PM +0000, mick crane wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> What I intended to mean was if somebody wants to try to alter
>> (rescind) the license
> 
> You'd have to explain what you mean by "rescind" here: the license
> to the current version or the one to the future versions. Details
> would depend on the license's text. GPLV3 is pretty explicit on
> that:
> 
>   2. Basic Permissions.
> 
>   All rights granted under this License are granted for the term
>   of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the
>   stated conditions are met.
> 
> Any questions?

nope

>> they would have to get the agreement of all the previous authors
>> whose work, released under the GPL, they used in their code.
> 
> This is a whole other kettle of fish, and you shouldn't mix it with
> the above -- this will result in impenetrable fog.
> 
> This concerns the case when a project wants to change the license:
> suppose it is "GPLV2 only" and the project leaders would like to
> relicense it to "GPLV3". This would run against the "GPLV2 only"
> terms, so it is only possible if /all copyright holders/ agree.
> 
> In some cases it's easy (as when there's just one copyright holder)
> in others (prominent example: the Linux kernel) each contributor
> retains the copyright to her own contribution... a change is
> practically impossible. But some (admittedly smaller at that time)
> projects have managed to pull that off [1].
> 
> The normal case is that when the original authors/company would
> like to do something like that, they expect a CLA ("Contributor's
> licence agreement") from their contributors (but that has to be
> done in advance, of course).
> 
>> Which I can't see happening.
> 
> Sometimes it happens (see OSM example below)
> 
> Cheers
> 
Was Smoothwall I think wanted to make proprietary and not release the 
code which resulted in IPCop.


> [1] https://blog.openstreetmap.org/tag/license-change/
> -- t

-- 
Key ID    4BFEBB31

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204749

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 13:27:04 +0100
<tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:55:39AM +0000, mick crane wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > I did try to comprehend all of the GPL at one time and found it very
> > tricky to navigate.  
> 
> I've been following this thread, and I think the GPL is much simpler
> than that:
> 
>  (1) use: always
>  (2) share (i.e. give to others, distribute, pack up in a bigger
> distro): you are bound by the GPL, that means you've to make the
> source available to your recipients, give them the same GPL rights)
>  (3) modify: as soon as you distribute modified versions, you've to
>    make those available under the same terms as the GPL.
> 
> Of course, if you own the copyright to the software itself (there's no
> such thing as to "own" "the software", viz. this term is so ambiguous
> as to be worthless), i.e. you wrote it, you paid someone to write it
> under a contract which gives you the copyright, etc., then you're not
> that much bound by (3). This is e.g. the basis for such things like
> the combined licenses, where the copyright owner has a commercial
> variant for those (presumably paying) customers who don't want to
> be bound by the terms of the GPL. Ghostscript [1] is a prominent
> example.
> 
> The trick with (2) is that you, as a "receiver" of the softare, don't
> have any rights to distribute it [2]; you are /granted/ those rights
> by the issuer /if/ you comply with the terms of the GPL. This is the
> implicit contract you're entering, whenever you /distribute/ the
> software (or a modified version).
> 
> This is the "copyleft" hack contained in the GPL.
> 
> That said, I'm not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on TV.
> 
> [1] https://www.ghostscript.com/license.html
> [2] That's by plain and simple copyright law.
> 

The whole point of the GPL, of course, was that a Random Large Software
Company couldn't just buy up code and remove it from the market. Even
if all the copyright holders were paid enough to remove their current
code from an open source project, they could not remove previous
versions, and anyone who wished to do so was free to continue
development.

If that isn't true then it's Game Over.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204752

Joe writes:
> The whole point of the GPL, of course, was that a Random Large
> Software Company couldn't just buy up code and remove it from the
> market. Even if all the copyright holders were paid enough to remove
> their current code from an open source project, they could not remove
> previous versions, and anyone who wished to do so was free to continue
> development.

That is true of other Open Source licenses such as the BSD license.

The point of the GPL is that if you extend a work distributed to you
under the terms of the GPL you are obligated to distribute your
extensions only under the terms of the GPL (though you are free to not
distribute them at all).  This is not true of the BSD license: you are
free to distribute derivatives of BSD licensed software under any terms
at all.  This was routinely done: I paid $1000 for BSD-OS for my first
386-based computer.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204753

On Monday, January 28, 2019 04:21:11 AM Curt wrote:
> On 2019-01-28, rhkramer@gmail.com <rhkramer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> Earthshaking! 

I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or not.  It wasn't intended to be 
earthshaking, but I don't think everybody realizes that.

> (Editor's note: there exist lawyers who are not amoral
> shysters and who even devote themselves to just causes.)

Not sure who the editor is ;-)  (Wish I had an editor ;-)

I guess if I edited the paragraph quoted above (which I wrote), I'd:

   * replace "often to further" with "sometimes to further" (at least with 
respect to their own interests, my understanding is that, in most cases, your 
lawyer is charged with furthering your interests (if you are their client)

   * replace "are willing to fight the legal battle" with "may be willing to 
fight the legal battle" (and maybe only as long as their client pays them?)

> I guess the following is pertinent:
> 
> https://hackaday.com/2018/09/27/can-you-take-back-open-source-code/

Read the article, skimming the comments, nothing to say at this time.

--< snip >--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204740 — Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?#

On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 07:24:17PM -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>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.

How strange; both that Ivan would mail you privately, and also I wonder
what the context was that prompted Ben to post the message starting this
thread in the first place.

When considering what is possible or not in law, especially when more
than one self-professed legal expert (vsnsdualce?) are in conflict with
one another, it sometimes helps to look at what has *actually happened*.
I don't believe that any court has yet ruled to support the revocation
of the GPL. When threats of such a thing come from Eric Raymond of all
people, I make sure I put plenty of salt on my shopping list.


-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204742 — Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?#

On 2019-01-28, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 07:24:17PM -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>>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.
>
> How strange; both that Ivan would mail you privately, and also I wonder
> what the context was that prompted Ben to post the message starting this
> thread in the first place.
>
> When considering what is possible or not in law, especially when more
> than one self-professed legal expert (vsnsdualce?) are in conflict with
> one another, it sometimes helps to look at what has *actually happened*.
> I don't believe that any court has yet ruled to support the revocation
> of the GPL. When threats of such a thing come from Eric Raymond of all
> people, I make sure I put plenty of salt on my shopping list.
>


Threat doesn't seem like the appropriate word for whatever's coming from Eric
Raymond concerning the matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204744

In article <201901271924.17175.rhkramer@gmail.com> 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.                                steve@einval.com
Who needs computer imagery when you've got Brian Blessed?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web