| 1 |
What promise did you rely upon? |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
It is the right of the property owner to revoke. |
| 4 |
You payed the property owner (Linux Programmer 721) nothing for his |
| 5 |
code. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
He never promised you that he would forgo his right to revoke |
| 8 |
(Read the GPLv2, there is no mention of not revoking the license. |
| 9 |
Something which the GPLv3 adds). |
| 10 |
(The SFConservancy's artistic interpretations were debunked 5 hours |
| 11 |
after publication) |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Additionally you did not pay the LICENSOR for this forbearance. |
| 14 |
It is not reasonable for you to rely on a promise that was never made, |
| 15 |
and a promise that you never payed the owner for. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
In short: you are wrong, |
| 18 |
and you and others are attempting to convert the property of the |
| 19 |
copyright owners to your own property, essentially. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
(Your claim is that another's property can be taken from him because to |
| 22 |
do otherwise would be inconvenient to the people that are committed to |
| 23 |
committing the taking.) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
On 2019-01-01 12:42, william drescher wrote: |
| 27 |
> "Consideration" can be in form of " |
| 28 |
> detrimental reliance." That means that you relied on the license and |
| 29 |
> that reliance cost you something. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> So if you spend money to pay programmers or if you spend time writing |
| 32 |
> programs based on the license you have paid for the license. |
Archives