GPL, not freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture
aryeh.friedman at gmail.com
Tue Apr 21 15:31:42 UTC 2020
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 8:08 AM Kevin P. Neal <kpn at 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 at iecc.com> wrote:
> > > >> In article <CAGBxaX=4=
> > > >> yx-xSo0gdsVgAoA7fUn8oRq3173covquHNw61kBJQ at mail.gmail.com> you
> > > >>> 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
> > > 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,
> > > >> use it.
> > > > There is major disagreement if it is a contract or an license (the
> > > 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
> > > 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
> Here is your post, archived:
> You said:
> % Thus I suspect if push came to shove in a legal fight about the legality
> % GPL forcing third parties that just happen to use a GPL'ed project to
> % 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
More information about the freebsd-questions