Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:31:28 -0400 From: Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> To: "Kevin P. Neal" <kpn@neutralgood.org> Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: GPL, not freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture Message-ID: <CAGBxaXmyok=6yF77GQCzz0ERdyR_5kVicubM98gy_ADLHqRgFA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20200421120756.GA98882@neutralgood.org> References: <CAGBxaX=4=yx-xSo0gdsVgAoA7fUn8oRq3173covquHNw61kBJQ@mail.gmail.com> <20200420011735.6448818053ED@ary.qy> <CAGBxaXk6dB=VX%2BOOSNKyf=rV8xOJJqfobPOvqLPiXY3tL8UdBg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2004192157350.48305@ary.qy> <CAGBxaXnQonqWrE0TMrW=Mu3EutQ=%2BA4V3J-3TNVzreWVvLqUrw@mail.gmail.com> <20200421120756.GA98882@neutralgood.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 8:08 AM Kevin P. Neal <kpn@neutralgood.org> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 10:09:53PM -0400, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 9:59 PM John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > > > > > >> In article <CAGBxaX=4= > > > >> yx-xSo0gdsVgAoA7fUn8oRq3173covquHNw61kBJQ@mail.gmail.com> you > write: > > > >>> Thus I suspect if push came to shove in a legal fight about the > > > legality > > > >> of > > > >>> GPL forcing third parties that just happen to use a GPL'ed project > to > > > give > > > >>> up all claims over how their work is used would likely > > > unconstitutional. > > > >> > > > >> I'd suggest not playing junior lawyer. The GPL is a contract and > > > >> there have been successful cases to enforce it. Nobody has any > > > >> inherent right to use GPL'ed software (or any other software not > > > >> released into the public domain) so if you don't like the terms, > don't > > > >> use it. > > > > There is major disagreement if it is a contract or an license (the > two > > > are > > > > not the same) see the wikipedia article on legal status > > > > > > Whichever it might turn out to be, it's still inane to claim there's > any > > > sort of constitutional issue, and it's still a bad idea to play junior > > > lawyer. > > > > > > > Not true according to the US Copyright office: > > https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html > > When you post links like this do you even _read_ them? > Do you ever read what I *ACTUALLY* said (see below for your complete misreading) > Here is your post, archived: > > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2020-April/288702.html > > You said: > % Thus I suspect if push came to shove in a legal fight about the legality > of > % GPL forcing third parties that just happen to use a GPL'ed project to > give > % up all claims over how their work is used would likely unconstitutional. > > To repeat the other poster, "it's still inane to claim there's any sort > of constitutional issue, and it's still a bad idea to play junior lawyer." > > A claim that the GPL could be "unconstitutional" is a claim that there is > a "constitutional issue" with the GPL. > I *NEVER* claimed there where any constitutional issues at all in GPL (except as there are any constitutional issues with *ALL* copyrighted material ever created since the constitution was written). The *ONLY* reason I mentioned the constitution at all is to show why copyright is a federal issue not a state issue. The only time GPL could possibly be a state issue is if it was a contract (something that FSF specifically says it is not, despite one court that is in a state that uses a slightly non-standard commercial code and thus might not apply nationally saying it is). > > Stop before you dig a bigger hole for yourself. > -- > Kevin P. Neal http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/ > > "Good grief, I've just noticed I've typed in a rant. Sorry chaps!" > Keir Finlow Bates, circa 1998 > -- Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGBxaXmyok=6yF77GQCzz0ERdyR_5kVicubM98gy_ADLHqRgFA>