* The GPLv2 is not a contract, it is a revocable license.
@ 2018-10-15 8:32 svasthree
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: svasthree @ 2018-10-15 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, debian-user, legal, users, dng
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1476 bytes --]
The GPLv2 is not a contract, it is a revocable license.
Here is a paper explaining what the GPL is and is not:
http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf
(With full citations).
(PDF attached)
Page 12 starts the relevant discussion.
Page 16 begins the explanation of all the ways the GPL is not a
contract.
Later there is a short gloss of state law promissory estopple doctrines.
Remember: in the case of the linux kernel it, unlike other projects,
omitted the "or any later version" codicil, and is only under version 2
of the GPL, which makes no promise of irrevocability by grantor.
(Note: The SFConservancy recently chose to publish a "correction" that
conflates clauses, within version 2 of the GPL, [that clarify that if a
licensee's license is revoked by operation of the license for a
violation of the terms, that sub-licensees licenses are not-in-turn
automatically revoked] - [with an inexistent irrevocability doctrine
within the text of the GPLv2])
(Additionally: Clause 0 of GPLv2 specifically defines the "you" in said
clauses as referring to the licensee (not the grantor); the
SFConservancy's conflation is shown to be ever more disingenuous)
The Linux Kernel License grant:
Is Not: a contract. [No breach of contract damages vs grantor if
rescinded]
Is: a bare license akin to a property license.
And: There is no "irrevocable by grantor" promise in v2. [No promissory
estopple defense]
.: Can be rescinded at will.
[-- Attachment #2: kumar-gpl-licenses.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Size: 261499 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* The GPLv2 is not a contract, it is a revocable license.
@ 2018-10-14 21:35 missingterms
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: missingterms @ 2018-10-14 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, debian-user
Cc: rms, bruce, esr, moglen, bkuhn, editor, torvalds, tcallawa
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1189 bytes --]
The GPLv2 is not a contract, it is a revocable license.
Enjoy the read:
http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf
(With full citations).
(PDF attached)
Page 12 starts the relevant discussion.
Page 16 gives the rundown on all the ways the GPL is not a contract.
Later there is a short gloss of state law promissory estopple doctrines,
but remember: in the case of the linux kernel it, unlike other projects,
omitted the "or any later version" codicil, and is only under version 2
of the GPL, which makes no promise of irrevocability by grantor.
(Note: The SFConservancy conflates clauses that clarify that if a
licensee's license is automatically revoked for a GPL violation, that
sub-licensees licenses are not-in-turn automatically revoked)
(Additionally: Clause 0 of GPLv2 specifically defines the "you" in said
clauses as referring to the licensee (not the grantor), so the
SFConservancy's conflation is shown to be ever more disengenious)
(Little more that a hope and a prayer to the wind)
So: Not a contract. Is a bare license akin to a property license. And
there is no "irrevocable by grantor" promise in v2. .: Can be rescinded
at will.
[-- Attachment #2: kumar-gpl-licenses.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Size: 261499 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-10-15 8:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-10-15 8:32 The GPLv2 is not a contract, it is a revocable license svasthree
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-10-14 21:35 missingterms
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).