Date:   Sun, 05 May 2019 04:51:15 +0000
From:   vsnsdualce2@...chan.it
To:     rhkramer@...il.com
Cc:     debian-user@...ts.debian.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ivan Ivanov <qmastery16@...il.com>, mailinglists@...tcrews.com,
        jhasler@...sguy.com, scdbackup@....net, richard@...nut.gen.nz,
        curty@...e.fr, jmtd@...ian.org, mick.crane@...il.com,
        tomas@...team.de, steve@...val.com, joe@...trading.com,
        rms@....org, esr@...rsus.com
Subject: Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? - Bradley M.
 Kuhn is not an attorney (he should go get his JD and get licensed).

> 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

rhkramer@...il.com:
Bradley M. Kuhn is not an attorney, which is why he had to step down as 
head
of his organization and hire a lawyer to head the organization
in his place: Bar rules do not allow lawyers to serve under a non-lawyer 
in
an organization, and the organization was essentially a pro-bono law 
firm
(which really needed a attorney in it's ranks...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_M._Kuhn

Yes the "oh I just stepped down because we need a woman to head this 
organization
now" claim he makes is, in fact, disingenuous. What they needed is a 
lawyer in
the organization: and the lawyer could not be directed by non-lawyers.

http://ebb.org/bkuhn/
> Kuhn holds a summa cum laude B.S. in Computer Science from Loyola 
> University in Maryland, and an M.S. in Computer Science from the 
> University of Cincinnati.

http://ebb.org/bkuhn/resume/
No J.D., No law license.


I have both.

I don't want to drag someone down, but I had to correct your mistake.
Once he applies to law school, gets his degree, and later his license 
I'm sure he will correct his as well.


On 2019-01-28 00:35, rhkramer@...il.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 27, 2019 07:24:17 PM rhkramer@...il.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.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists