1 |
It has been 2 months. Eben Moglen has published no research. |
2 |
|
3 |
Because there is nothing more to say: The GPLv2, as used by linux, is a |
4 |
bare license. It can be rescinded at the will of the grantor. |
5 |
|
6 |
The regime that the FSF used, vis-a-vis the GPLv2, is essential: |
7 |
copyright transfers to a central repository entity that is sure not to |
8 |
rescind. |
9 |
|
10 |
Linus chose not to adopt this regime. |
11 |
He benefited by greatly increased developer contribution. |
12 |
The price for that windfall was and is the retention of their |
13 |
traditional property rights by the property holders. |
14 |
|
15 |
They can rescind at will. |
16 |
They made no promise nor utterance to the contrary that can be relied |
17 |
upon. |
18 |
They were paid no consideration. |
19 |
There was no meeting of the minds. |
20 |
|
21 |
Additionally the CoC regime itself is a license terms violation, being |
22 |
an additional restrictive term, as explained in the other analysis. |
23 |
(Similar to the GRSecurity license violation) |
24 |
|
25 |
On 2018-10-26 18:31, Eben Moglen wrote: |
26 |
> On Friday, 26 October 2018, visionsofalice@×××××××.it wrote: |
27 |
> |
28 |
> You are conflating case law dealing with commercial software and |
29 |
> non-gratuitous licenses with the present situation, which would |
30 |
> likely |
31 |
> be a case of first-impression in nearly any jurisdiction. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> I think the best procedure would be for me to publish my analysis and |
34 |
> for you then to tell me what is wrong with it. What you say here |
35 |
> sounds like what a lawyer might say, but isn't. I have been teaching |
36 |
> this stuff for about thirty years, so if I am conflating or confusing |
37 |
> anything I will be grateful for help in seeing my mistake. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> The rule for gratuitous licenses is that they are revocable at the |
40 |
> will |
41 |
> of the grantor. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> That's not actually "the rule." It sounds like it might be the rule, |
44 |
> but it so happens that it's not. When I have given the explanation as |
45 |
> I have learned, taught and depended on it, you will be able to show me |
46 |
> what I am wrong about. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Raymond Nimmer (God rest his soul) was in agreement on this point, |
49 |
> vis-a-vis the GPL and similar licenses. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> You have your Nimmers confused. The primary author of the treatise |
52 |
> Nimmer on Copyright (a book about the law, not in itself an authority) |
53 |
> was Melville Nimmer. The treatise is continued by his son, David, a |
54 |
> fine lawyer with whom I do from time to time politely disagree about |
55 |
> something. Ray Nimmer is quite another person. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> Eben |