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

[Dale]

Hi,

Top posting since last one did. 

Question.  Why are these license discussions being done on a USER list
instead of a DEVELOPER list?  Gentoo has mailing lists that are to be
used for this sort of topic.  How about taking them there?  Here is a
link with them listed.

https://gentoo.org/get-involved/mailing-lists/all-lists.html

I would suggest gentoo-project since it is not moderated and this is not
a technical topic. 

Best wishes.

Dale

:-)  :-) 



vsnsdualce@××××××××.net wrote:
> 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.
>
>