Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?
In article <[🔎] 201901271924.17175.rhkramer@gmail.com> you write:
>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
>
>> (e.g. the recent removal of useful "weboob" package which
>> have been a part of Debian for 8 years but got removed just because
>> some mad SJWs suddenly got offended at its' name) - well you know what
>> to do, and maybe vsnsdualce will be happy to help with your case free
>> of charge.
Ranting about SJWs? Check. Ignore this person.
>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not an example of a (free or GPL) license being rescinded.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.)
>
>Whatever license and rights conveyed by that license still exist, but Debian
>(not the copyright owner) has decided no longer to include that in what they
>distribute.
>
>You can still get the Weboob package from other sources (unless they all
>disappear) and use the Weboob package in accordance with the license terms for
>the package you find.
Right. This is an irrelevant side-argument.
>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.
Correct. Lawyers' opinions are typically estimates of what *might*
happen, informed by their training and background. Until there is
precedent from actual cases, there's not much more to go on.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Who needs computer imagery when you've got Brian Blessed?
Reply to: