GPL, not freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture

[Aryeh Friedman]

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
> 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