From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38614C43387 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 18:53:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED7C2184C for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 18:53:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=redchan.it header.i=@redchan.it header.b="MXga1/QJ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726714AbeLRSxF (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Dec 2018 13:53:05 -0500 Received: from cock.li ([185.100.85.212]:46576 "EHLO cock.li" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726575AbeLRSxF (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Dec 2018 13:53:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=redchan.it; s=mail; t=1545159181; bh=wKjWMkWYpJJOvxB+NnVrwA5kb/0iy36b1XIn2YRD2Zs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=MXga1/QJt0NytvfkDyWvsgn6xF19Y0Ncs9o308327JDX2sIDGXQZq+kIGT6KnRCiC Smtntq6FRCZ8p7EhMpWbm9lVTEJyYVZvtf2qSUd4+R6mzuw/iozVB3P25DKtn4aG10 qFuchk8daRDjX4nyA9nvrjQCHtUuARuG+hCqeBSo5RWro0kzX9c7LlYbbAp287aUNn BbGvwI4dxbqAYFmiaJSjivmoBOwjvK3s4L+/S8hPuF364k7q8TKqMguXsLDVq95KPI j3V2HBsDhWhg9RXdEehe2QF6cqmAWIIGBs+ppElJWRt1W+Bdt0b2ZfNIN1tdIKsmYp PIkXJx5pLp39g== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 18:53:00 +0000 From: visionsofalice@redchan.it To: Eben Moglen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, esr@thyrsus.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rms@gnu.org, bruce@perens.com, bkuhn@sfconservancy.org, editor@lwn.net, neil@brown.name, labbott@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de, olof@lixom.net, clm@fb.com, mishi@linux.com, linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. - Analysis published? In-Reply-To: <3068-Fri26Oct2018143130-0400-eben@harlan.sflc-vpn> References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com> <87y3ar80ac.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <185b786a2bd6e8d527dca161dc42e4f1@redchan.it> <20181025081911.GB11343@kroah.com> <20181025193901.GD26403@thyrsus.com> <849-Fri26Oct2018091533-0400-eben@harlan.sflc-vpn> <4c023302875de71cc58007301b180940@redchan.it> <3068-Fri26Oct2018143130-0400-eben@harlan.sflc-vpn> Message-ID: <12836077374501b01a0c74a4e3f6276f@redchan.it> X-Sender: visionsofalice@redchan.it User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Has the analysis been published yet? I have been away on an artistic sabbatical, but I don't see it in the inbox using searches, this was the last mail I received on the subject. On 2018-10-26 18:31, Eben Moglen wrote: > On Friday, 26 October 2018, visionsofalice@redchan.it wrote: > > You are conflating case law dealing with commercial software and > non-gratuitous licenses with the present situation, which would > likely > be a case of first-impression in nearly any jurisdiction. > > I think the best procedure would be for me to publish my analysis and > for you then to tell me what is wrong with it. What you say here > sounds like what a lawyer might say, but isn't. I have been teaching > this stuff for about thirty years, so if I am conflating or confusing > anything I will be grateful for help in seeing my mistake. > > The rule for gratuitous licenses is that they are revocable at the > will > of the grantor. > > That's not actually "the rule." It sounds like it might be the rule, > but it so happens that it's not. When I have given the explanation as > I have learned, taught and depended on it, you will be able to show me > what I am wrong about. > > Raymond Nimmer (God rest his soul) was in agreement on this point, > vis-a-vis the GPL and similar licenses. > > You have your Nimmers confused. The primary author of the treatise > Nimmer on Copyright (a book about the law, not in itself an authority) > was Melville Nimmer. The treatise is continued by his son, David, a > fine lawyer with whom I do from time to time politely disagree about > something. Ray Nimmer is quite another person. > > Eben