[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <70c37b00a9e93567059fdc55629ddbd5@redchan.it>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 21:35:15 +0000
From: missingterms@...chan.it
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, debian-user@...ts.debian.org
Cc: rms@....org, bruce@...ens.com, esr@...rsus.com,
moglen@...umbia.edu, bkuhn@...onservancy.org, editor@....net,
torvalds@...l.org, tcallawa@...hat.com
Subject: The GPLv2 is not a contract, it is a revocable license.
The GPLv2 is not a contract, it is a revocable license.
Enjoy the read:
http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf
(With full citations).
(PDF attached)
Page 12 starts the relevant discussion.
Page 16 gives the rundown on all the ways the GPL is not a contract.
Later there is a short gloss of state law promissory estopple doctrines,
but remember: in the case of the linux kernel it, unlike other projects,
omitted the "or any later version" codicil, and is only under version 2
of the GPL, which makes no promise of irrevocability by grantor.
(Note: The SFConservancy conflates clauses that clarify that if a
licensee's license is automatically revoked for a GPL violation, that
sub-licensees licenses are not-in-turn automatically revoked)
(Additionally: Clause 0 of GPLv2 specifically defines the "you" in said
clauses as referring to the licensee (not the grantor), so the
SFConservancy's conflation is shown to be ever more disengenious)
(Little more that a hope and a prayer to the wind)
So: Not a contract. Is a bare license akin to a property license. And
there is no "irrevocable by grantor" promise in v2. .: Can be rescinded
at will.
Download attachment "kumar-gpl-licenses.pdf" of type "application/pdf" (261499 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists