Re: knifeshack (Linux Property rights)

From: vsnsdualce
Date: Sun Jan 06 2019 - 01:40:32 EST

Your "no it does not because we are talking about software" argument is, to put it simply in a way you can understand: retarded.

It shows that you, a software engineer, because you are learned in one field of endeavor, believe yourself to be "smart" and "reasonable" in unrelated fields of endeavors. You are wrong. This really shows how stupid alot of you western software-only guys are. (Also moronic is your constant disparagement of those who have to deal with the physical realities of things: the hardware guys).

I have gone to lengths to attempt to teach you the foundation of licensing law, how it interacts with copyright, and how such applies to the specific facts surrounding the linux kernel; myself knowing the history of the kernel, and also being studied in US law.

It doesn't seem to get through.
So simply: You are not a lawyer. Do not think your "common sense" as a software engineer applies to the law.

(On to the knifeshack analogy/story:)
In the USA, the law regarding licensing of various properties is similar. The key here is that the owner simply gave permission to use his property (he did not seek payment for extending that permission).

To illustrate the fact, so that non-lawyers would understand, we have used a Knife as an analogy.

Also note: It is from the USA that the CoC problem is emanating, so it is right to use the law of the USA to illustrate the point (also since that's where lawsuits are most likely to occur: You do know about the USA, correct?)

It doesn't matter so much, in this corner of the law, that IP is not physical property. In the area of giving permission to use it, it is treated much the same.

Remember: the "Thing" that was extended to you was the permission, that is what you "have", you do not own the intellectual property you were licensed.

Now, once we look at commercial licenses, things get more complicated because you paid for the license. But the key point here is that this isn't such a situation. We are not discussing commercial software licensing here.

When you cursory look up information to "fact check" me, 9 times out of 10 you will be reading about the law as regards to commercial licenses where there is bargained-for consideration. Then you cite that to say that I'm wrong. (PJ made this very same mistake on this issue in 2005, she's still "cited" even though she's just a paralegal (still) and not a lawyer, and is wrong (maybe that's why she shut-up once her identity was know)).

A license not coupled with an interest is revocable by the property owner. It's fairly simple. Ask yourself "did I pay linux programer-copyright-holder 7829 for permission to use his code?". No? Then you have not paid for whatever "promise" he made to you (if any). Thus you cannot bind him. And as I have shown; he never even made the promise you imagine he did.

The whole counter-argument is to concoct some non-existent attached interest. The fact that we are dealing with software and not land or personal property is NOT controlling. I know you think it should be handled differently, but your uneducated opinion is not controlling law.

Perhaps you would be better off with a video recorded in American to explain it all simply:


On 2019-01-03 12:19, MPhil. Emanoil Kotsev wrote:
vsnsdualce@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 2019-01-02 02:32, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Take your medication.

Don't like the story? Why what is wrong with it.

Was it the entrance, the middle, or the conclusion?

It simply explains licensing in a way you might find helpful, as it
relates to linux.

No, it does not, because you can not copy and redistribute anything but

PLS give us a break!