On 27/12/2018 21:30, [email protected] wrote:
Real name pls, if want to be taken somewhat serious? Thank you.
> Why is no one discussing this anymore.
You don't discuss anything in the first place: You just spam mails with
claims without any reproducible proof.
And since we are here on a techie-list, said proofs should be
techie-understandable - it's not that techies adjust to non-techies if
it goes in the other direction.
> It's like you just accepted the "NU UH U WRONG" proclamation from
"Proof by claim"? I don't think so ....
> Are you idiots [...]
>
> Are you idiots aware that I am a lawyer[...]
>
> Are you idiots [...]
Interesting "qualities" of communication are apparently in order for
(alleged) lawyers in your part of the world.
MfG,
Bernd
PS: Sry for feeding the troll- won't happen anymore, it's only spam
after all ...
--
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : [email protected]
LUGA : http://www.luga.at
> Real name pls, if want to be taken somewhat serious? Thank you.
So where my logic cannot be attacked, my person may be instead?
Do you think me a fool, simply because you do not know what you do not
know (the law), yet think you do (an attribute of many programmers: know
one field, know them all!)?
I've explained the law again and again.
But here it goes:
Under the copyright statute, copyrighted works are alienable in all the
ways property is.
You can sell, transfer, and license etc.
Copyright comes into existence the moment your work is placed in a fix
form. The copyright is owned by the progenitor (you the programmer)
until such time as you transfer it (ex: to an employee by way of
employment agreement stating such terms), or you die (now your
descendants own the rights), or you or your descendants elect to use the
"claw-back" provisions in the US copyright act some decades after the
work was fixed.
You, both BSD programmers, and Linux kernel programmers have elected to
neither sell nor transfer in other ways your copyrights.
Instead you have chosen to license your works.
A license is a temporary grant.
Under property law it can be rescinded when the property owner wishes to
do so.
Unless, the property owner has been payed to forgo that right.
That is: if the property owner has been payed by the licensee to promise
that he will not rescind the license,
then if the property owner elects to rescind the license the court may
estop the property owner from doing so
because the licensee has payed the owner FOR that right.
Equivalent exchange, if you will. (But the court does not look to if the
consideration was... equivalent, just that there was an exchange of some
consideration (read: money, goods, services) and a meeting of the minds
(both parties ment to do this))
In the case of most linux and BSD licensees nothing has been payed by
them to the programmers(you the copyright holders) to induce a
forbearance of the underlying rights of the property owners.
Thus the original default rights still stand.
You can rescind at will.
Additionally, you have never promised that you would forego the
utilization of your property rights,
so there is no promise anyone could reasonably rely upon to estop you
from utilizing said rights.
Additionally, Licensee "E" did not pay you for that non-existent promise
either.
You are not bound. You may rescind.
You now know why the FSF requires programmers to assign all copyrights
to it.
You now know why Eben Moglen remains silent these last two months. I am
correct, yes I am a lawyer, and yes anything he speaks further would
simply show the weaknesses in his (magnanimously) taken position in
trying to fool the Programmers into thinking they have forfeited rights
they have not.
On 2018-12-27 21:53, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On 27/12/2018 21:30, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Real name pls, if want to be taken somewhat serious? Thank you.
>
>> Why is no one discussing this anymore.
>
> You don't discuss anything in the first place: You just spam mails with
> claims without any reproducible proof.
> And since we are here on a techie-list, said proofs should be
> techie-understandable - it's not that techies adjust to non-techies if
> it goes in the other direction.
>
>> It's like you just accepted the "NU UH U WRONG" proclamation from
>
> "Proof by claim"? I don't think so ....
>
>> Are you idiots [...]
>>
>> Are you idiots aware that I am a lawyer[...]
>>
>> Are you idiots [...]
>
> Interesting "qualities" of communication are apparently in order for
> (alleged) lawyers in your part of the world.
>
> MfG,
> Bernd
>
> PS: Sry for feeding the troll- won't happen anymore, it's only spam
> after all ...