Thrusday, the 26 of July, 2007: Linus Torvalds stated No to GPL version
3. So what now?

Based on the US and international contract laws. There can only be one
active GPL. So, once the FSF adopted the third version on June 29,
2007 all previous versions aka GPL version 2 is no longer a valid
license. Just like GPL version 2 replaced version 1 back in early 1090's.

It does not matter that FSF states that there can be two GPL versions.
Or that Linus Torvalds states that LINUX will stay under version 2. What
matters is the LAW on the land that issued the license and the countries
that accept contract law. What contract LAW states is that all programs
that are released under the GPL after the 29, of June, 2007 will now be
under GPL 3, even if that have not updated the license file. Actually, the
people who release the software can be sued if they do not update the file.


For the non law educated people.

1) It like a will, if you rewrite your will the new one is the law.
The old one is no longer valid. Or

2) Credit licenses new rules. Once you receive the new rules, the
useage of the card means you have accepted the new rules. If you
do not accept the new rules you must tell the credit card owners
and you will lose the useage of that card. Payments of a inactive
account may be based on old rules or you may be forced to pay
the card off now and that choice is up to the credit card owners
not you.

Now from my understand this means that Linus Torvalds must either
accept the GPL 3 or adopt a different license for Linux!

anon wrote:
> Thrusday, the 26 of July, 2007: Linus Torvalds stated No to GPL version
> 3. So what now?
>
> Based on the US and international contract laws. There can only be one
> active GPL. So, once the FSF adopted the third version on June 29,
> 2007 all previous versions aka GPL version 2 is no longer a valid
> license. Just like GPL version 2 replaced version 1 back in early 1090's.

You can always fork the license, kind in the same manner as LGPL was created,
so it's not that big things IMHO. As copyright owner has the right to change
the license at their will, so we could suddenly have a OGPL in the kernel
instead of GPL.

--

//Aho

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:50:43 GMT, anon wrote:

> Based on the US and international contract laws. There can only be one
> active GPL.

Don't feed the troll.

anon writes:
> Based on the US and international contract laws. There can only be one
> active GPL.

You know considerably less than nothing about law.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:50:43 +0000, anon wrote:

> Thrusday, the 26 of July, 2007: Linus Torvalds stated No to GPL version
> 3. So what now?

Bugger off, "rm". You're not fooling anyone, even when you troll in this
newsgroup instead of your usual ones...


--
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he sold Eeyore to the glue factory.

anon wrote:

> Based on the US and international contract laws.

You obviously /don't/ understand Law. I do. You're wrong. Go and spread
your FUD elsewhere!

C.

anon@anon.org (anon) writes:

>Thrusday, the 26 of July, 2007: Linus Torvalds stated No to GPL version
>3. So what now?

>Based on the US and international contract laws. There can only be one
>active GPL. So, once the FSF adopted the third version on June 29,
>2007 all previous versions aka GPL version 2 is no longer a valid
>license. Just like GPL version 2 replaced version 1 back in early 1090's.

Absolute and complete nonesense. You release your software under some
license. That license applies no matter that someone else releases their
programs under some other license. GPL2 did NOT replace GPL1. GPL2 was a
slightly different license to GPL1 and some people use it and some 1.


>It does not matter that FSF states that there can be two GPL versions.
>Or that Linus Torvalds states that LINUX will stay under version 2. What
>matters is the LAW on the land that issued the license and the countries
>that accept contract law. What contract LAW states is that all programs
>that are released under the GPL after the 29, of June, 2007 will now be
>under GPL 3, even if that have not updated the license file. Actually, the

Again, your knowledge of thelaw is shall we say, flawed.
Contract law says nothing about GPL.

>people who release the software can be sued if they do not update the file.

By whom can they be sued and under what what law.



>For the non law educated people.

> 1) It like a will, if you rewrite your will the new one is the law.
> The old one is no longer valid. Or

Yes, if YOU write the new will and sign it. But if your bother in law
writes a new will yours is not affected.


> 2) Credit licenses new rules. Once you receive the new rules, the
> useage of the card means you have accepted the new rules. If you

( well lets accept your promise. The actual law on this is a bit more
unclear. You cannot be be bound by a new contract that you did not agree
to.) The ISSUER of the contract changed it. If Visa changes their contract,
that has no effect whatsoever on a Mastercard holder.


> do not accept the new rules you must tell the credit card owners
> and you will lose the useage of that card. Payments of a inactive
> account may be based on old rules or you may be forced to pay

No , it is based on old rules. Those are the only ones you have agreed to.

> the card off now and that choice is up to the credit card owners
> not you.

Only if that is explicitly part of the contract you signed. But again
irrelevant.


>Now from my understand this means that Linus Torvalds must either
>accept the GPL 3 or adopt a different license for Linux!

Ah yes, your understand(ing) .

First, this is my second post in this group! I was ask to make this post
by a few friends that want a final answer on this. That means if you
think that I am someone else who post here, your understand is wrong.

Second, as for license, try using GPL version 1. People will not allow it.

Third, if a Bank card such as Visa Corp changes it policy it will affect
all Visa cards no matter if your card comes from let say "Capital One",
or "Bank of America" or etc. The banks must accept the new policy (if
they want to continue their Visa accounts) and they must pass this new
policy to their customers (you). If the banks do not accept this then they
must change. An Example is: Citi-Group decided to stop its Visa back in
the mid 90's because they would not accept the new Visa policy. Their
solution was they changed all of their customers Citi-Visa accounts to
Citi-Mastercards. And the customer had no choice in the matter, except to
change banks if they wanted a Visa. Next time the bank changes it policy
read the new policy document with care. Or better yet pay a lawyer to
explain it.

Fourth, as we have seen in the past a few corporations do violates a
license or law from time to time. And when they are caught they do
wind up in court. But it might be years before they the violation is
uncovered.

Fifth, If GPL version 2 is valid, then why is Microsoft trying to get
out of it agreements with some of Open Source groups like Novell.
Because they know that GPL 3 replaces the all deals after June 29,
2007. And Microsoft is big enough to know the LAW. They have been
in court, sued by the US government from time to time. So, if Microsoft
is scared of the GPL version 3 then the Open Source Community should
take a closer look at it!

The moral of what I am saying is. Unless you have been sued about
an untested in court license you do not know. SPEAK with Knowledge!
Do Not Just State What You Want Life To Be!

As for FSF, I think they should test the GPL version 2 and 3 in court.
That would give us the final answer on true an tested GPL and if both
and exist! Because until the GPL is tested, close source groups like
Microsoft can treated the the GPL with court action! Or even other
Open Source people can sue!


In <gPLqi.74042$xk5.62509@edtnps82>, Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> writes:
>anon@anon.org (anon) writes:
>
>>Thrusday, the 26 of July, 2007: Linus Torvalds stated No to GPL version
>>3. So what now?
>
>>Based on the US and international contract laws. There can only be one
>>active GPL. So, once the FSF adopted the third version on June 29,
>>2007 all previous versions aka GPL version 2 is no longer a valid
>>license. Just like GPL version 2 replaced version 1 back in early 1090's.
>
>Absolute and complete nonesense. You release your software under some
>license. That license applies no matter that someone else releases their
>programs under some other license. GPL2 did NOT replace GPL1. GPL2 was a
>slightly different license to GPL1 and some people use it and some 1.
>
>
>>It does not matter that FSF states that there can be two GPL versions.
>>Or that Linus Torvalds states that LINUX will stay under version 2. What
>>matters is the LAW on the land that issued the license and the countries
>>that accept contract law. What contract LAW states is that all programs
>>that are released under the GPL after the 29, of June, 2007 will now be
>>under GPL 3, even if that have not updated the license file. Actually, the
>
>Again, your knowledge of thelaw is shall we say, flawed.
>Contract law says nothing about GPL.
>
>>people who release the software can be sued if they do not update the file.
>
>By whom can they be sued and under what what law.
>
>
>
>>For the non law educated people.
>
>> 1) It like a will, if you rewrite your will the new one is the law.
>> The old one is no longer valid. Or
>
>Yes, if YOU write the new will and sign it. But if your bother in law
>writes a new will yours is not affected.
>
>
>> 2) Credit licenses new rules. Once you receive the new rules, the
>> useage of the card means you have accepted the new rules. If you
>
>( well lets accept your promise. The actual law on this is a bit more
>unclear. You cannot be be bound by a new contract that you did not agree
>to.) The ISSUER of the contract changed it. If Visa changes their contract,
>that has no effect whatsoever on a Mastercard holder.
>
>
>> do not accept the new rules you must tell the credit card owners
>> and you will lose the useage of that card. Payments of a inactive
>> account may be based on old rules or you may be forced to pay
>
>No , it is based on old rules. Those are the only ones you have agreed to.
>
>> the card off now and that choice is up to the credit card owners
>> not you.
>
>Only if that is explicitly part of the contract you signed. But again
>irrelevant.
>
>
>>Now from my understand this means that Linus Torvalds must either
>>accept the GPL 3 or adopt a different license for Linux!
>
>Ah yes, your understand(ing) .
>
>

anon writes:
> First, this is my second post in this group!

And for the second time you demonstrate that you know less than nothing
about law.

> Second, as for license, try using GPL version 1. People will not allow
> it.

Who are those people and where do you imagine that they get the authority
to dictate what license I may use?

> Third, if a Bank card...

There is no useful analogy between your contract with Visa and my choice of
Free Software license.

> Because they know that GPL 3 replaces the all deals after June 29, 2007.

False.

> So, if Microsoft is scared of the GPL version 3 then the Open Source
> Community should take a closer look at it!

We know exactly why they are afraid of it. I won't use it but for entirely
different reasons than Microsoft's. Indeed, their fear of it allays some
of my concerns.

> As for FSF, I think they should test the GPL version 2 and 3 in court.

Again you display your ignorance. First, GPLv2 _has_ been tested in court
and second, one does not just walk up to a Federal judge, hand him a
document, and instruct him to "test" it.

> Because until the GPL is tested, close source groups like Microsoft can
> treated the the GPL with court action!

The above sentence makes no sense.

> Or even other Open Source people can sue!

Who? For what?
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

On 2007-07-29, anon wrote:
> First, this is my second post in this group! I was ask to make this post
> by a few friends that want a final answer on this. That means if you
> think that I am someone else who post here, your understand is wrong.
>
> Second, as for license, try using GPL version 1. People will not allow it.

If I wanted to release my work under GPL v1, there is nothing to
stop me. If I don't want to release anything under GPL v3, but
want to remain with v2, I can.


--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author | <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence

Government satellites recorded anon saying:
> First, this is my second post in this group! I was ask to make this post
> by a few friends that want a final answer on this. That means if you
> think that I am someone else who post here, your understand is wrong.
<snip drivel>

You want legal GPL news? OK, then go here http://www.groklaw.net/
and leave us alone.

--
sk8r-365

http://goodbye-microsoft.com/

Why should I leave you alone!

None of you are lawyers or been in Court! So, you are the ones that
have no idea of ther TRUTH!


In <3tgtn4-k9q.ln1@sk8r.hosts.bc1.bresnan.net>, sk8r-365 <sk8r-365@sk8r.debian.etch.invalid.org> writes:
>Government satellites recorded anon saying:
>> First, this is my second post in this group! I was ask to make this post
>> by a few friends that want a final answer on this. That means if you
>> think that I am someone else who post here, your understand is wrong.
><snip drivel>
>
>You want legal GPL news? OK, then go here http://www.groklaw.net/
>and leave us alone.
>
>--
>sk8r-365
>
>http://goodbye-microsoft.com/

anon wrote:

> Why should I leave you alone!

Because you're obviously stupid, illiterate and a waste of air.

> None of you are lawyers or been in Court!

How do you know? I was in court just last Tuesday prosecuting a Patent
infringement case - I won, of course.

> So, you are the ones that
> have no idea of ther TRUTH!

The truth is that you're too stupid to play with, so *PLONK!*

Name calling is the problem here!

I made a statement.

Instead of producing court cases or documents that could if they
exist, prove me wrong. You just cover your head in dirt and say that
its is FALSE, wth no proof. No wonder why device applications like
(cellphone) for Linux do not exist. Your to busy calling people false,
and cuttring down companies instead of working on a solution. Now
that's just childish!


In <%q6ri.31901$2U6.9415@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk> , Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>anon wrote:
>
>> Why should I leave you alone!
>
>Because you're obviously stupid, illiterate and a waste of air.
>
>> None of you are lawyers or been in Court!
>
>How do you know? I was in court just last Tuesday prosecuting a Patent
>infringement case - I won, of course.

IF SO, PROVE IT! GIVE US THE DETAILS AND COURT INFORMATION!!!
But you wont because your the one that is False!

>
>> So, you are the ones that
>> have no idea of ther TRUTH!
>
>The truth is that you're too stupid to play with, so *PLONK!*
>

On 2007-07-30, anon wrote:
> Name calling is the problem here!
>
> I made a statement.

But you didn't provide any supporting evidence for it.

> Instead of producing court cases or documents that could if they
> exist, prove me wrong.

You haven't said anything to make anyone even start to take your
statement seriously. Do that, and people will.

To people who have been following the issues around the GPL (all
versions), what you posted is total nonsense. It's up to you to
prove otherwise.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author | <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence