[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5ce39a81def18e85ced5b5b7cc79f618@8chan.co>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:32:02 +0000
From: svasthree@...an.co
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, debian-user@...ts.debian.org,
legal@...ts.fedoraproject.org, users@...ts.fedoraproject.org,
dng@...ts.dyne.org
Subject: The GPLv2 is not a contract, it is a revocable license.
The GPLv2 is not a contract, it is a revocable license.
Here is a paper explaining what the GPL is and is not:
http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf
(With full citations).
(PDF attached)
Page 12 starts the relevant discussion.
Page 16 begins the explanation of all the ways the GPL is not a
contract.
Later there is a short gloss of state law promissory estopple doctrines.
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 recently chose to publish a "correction" that
conflates clauses, within version 2 of the GPL, [that clarify that if a
licensee's license is revoked by operation of the license for a
violation of the terms, that sub-licensees licenses are not-in-turn
automatically revoked] - [with an inexistent irrevocability doctrine
within the text of the GPLv2])
(Additionally: Clause 0 of GPLv2 specifically defines the "you" in said
clauses as referring to the licensee (not the grantor); the
SFConservancy's conflation is shown to be ever more disingenuous)
The Linux Kernel License grant:
Is Not: a contract. [No breach of contract damages vs grantor if
rescinded]
Is: a bare license akin to a property license.
And: There is no "irrevocable by grantor" promise in v2. [No promissory
estopple defense]
.: Can be rescinded at will.
Download attachment "kumar-gpl-licenses.pdf" of type "application/pdf" (261499 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists