Re: CoC loving Linux programmers swear the GPLv2 is irrevocable. They are wrong. (As are the women they wish to empower).

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CoC loving Linux programmers swear the GPLv2 is irrevocable. They are wrong. (As are the women they wish to empower).

vsnsdualce
What promise did you rely upon?

It is the right of the property owner to revoke.
You payed the property owner (Linux Programmer 721) nothing for his
code.

He never promised you that he would forgo his right to revoke
(Read the GPLv2, there is no mention of not revoking the license.
Something which the GPLv3 adds).
(The SFConservancy's artistic interpretations were debunked 5 hours
after publication)

Additionally you did not pay the LICENSOR for this forbearance.
It is not reasonable for you to rely on a promise that was never made,
and a promise that you never payed the owner for.

In short: you are wrong,
and you and others are attempting to convert the property of the
copyright owners to your own property, essentially.

(Your claim is that another's property can be taken from him because to
do otherwise would be inconvenient to the people that are committed to
committing the taking.)


On 2019-01-01 12:42, william drescher wrote:
> "Consideration" can be in form of "
> detrimental reliance." That means that you relied on the license and
> that reliance cost you something.
>
> So if you spend money to pay programmers or if you spend time writing
> programs based on the license you have paid for the license.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CoC loving Linux programmers swear the GPLv2 is irrevocable. They are wrong. (As are the women they wish to empower).

Dale-46
Hi,

Top posting since last one did. 

Question.  Why are these license discussions being done on a USER list
instead of a DEVELOPER list?  Gentoo has mailing lists that are to be
used for this sort of topic.  How about taking them there?  Here is a
link with them listed.

https://gentoo.org/get-involved/mailing-lists/all-lists.html

I would suggest gentoo-project since it is not moderated and this is not
a technical topic. 

Best wishes.

Dale

:-)  :-) 



[hidden email] wrote:

> What promise did you rely upon?
>
> It is the right of the property owner to revoke.
> You payed the property owner (Linux Programmer 721) nothing for his code.
>
> He never promised you that he would forgo his right to revoke
> (Read the GPLv2, there is no mention of not revoking the license.
> Something which the GPLv3 adds).
> (The SFConservancy's artistic interpretations were debunked 5 hours
> after publication)
>
> Additionally you did not pay the LICENSOR for this forbearance.
> It is not reasonable for you to rely on a promise that was never made,
> and a promise that you never payed the owner for.
>
> In short: you are wrong,
> and you and others are attempting to convert the property of the
> copyright owners to your own property, essentially.
>
> (Your claim is that another's property can be taken from him because
> to do otherwise would be inconvenient to the people that are committed
> to committing the taking.)
>
>
> On 2019-01-01 12:42, william drescher wrote:
>> "Consideration" can be in form of "
>> detrimental reliance." That means that you relied on the license and
>> that reliance cost you something.
>>
>> So if you spend money to pay programmers or if you spend time writing
>> programs based on the license you have paid for the license.
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CoC loving Linux programmers swear the GPLv2 is irrevocable. They are wrong. (As are the women they wish to empower).

Rich Freeman
On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 3:44 PM Dale <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Question.  Why are these license discussions being done on a USER list
> instead of a DEVELOPER list?  Gentoo has mailing lists that are to be
> used for this sort of topic.  How about taking them there?  Here is a
> link with them listed.
>

This is indeed off-topic for this list (and other Gentoo lists).  This
is being resolved off-list shortly.

I appreciate everybody's ongoing patience with not replying.

--
Rich