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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 01 Jan 2019 20:16:16 +0000
From:   vsnsdualce@...eware.net
To:     william@...hservsys.com,
        "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions" 
        <ubuntu-users@...ts.ubuntu.com>
Cc:     misc@...nbsd.org, gentoo-user@...ts.gentoo.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CoC loving Linux programmers swear the GPLv2 is irrevocable. They
 are wrong. (As are the women they wish to empower).

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.