Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Tue, 18 Dec 2018 18:53:00 +0000
From:   visionsofalice@redchan.it
To:     Eben Moglen <moglen@columbia.edu>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, esr@thyrsus.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rms@gnu.org, bruce@perens.com,
        bkuhn@sfconservancy.org, editor@lwn.net, neil@brown.name,
        labbott@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        olof@lixom.net, clm@fb.com, mishi@linux.com,
        linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. -  Analysis
 published?
In-Reply-To: <3068-Fri26Oct2018143130-0400-eben@harlan.sflc-vpn>
References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com>
 <87y3ar80ac.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
 <c6bf1877-6e29-50ec-ffa8-314ab35ec9ce@redhat.com>
 <185b786a2bd6e8d527dca161dc42e4f1@redchan.it>
 <20181025081911.GB11343@kroah.com> <20181025193901.GD26403@thyrsus.com>
 <849-Fri26Oct2018091533-0400-eben@harlan.sflc-vpn>
 <4c023302875de71cc58007301b180940@redchan.it>
 <3068-Fri26Oct2018143130-0400-eben@harlan.sflc-vpn>
Message-ID: <12836077374501b01a0c74a4e3f6276f@redchan.it>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Has the analysis been published yet?

I have been away on an artistic sabbatical, but I don't see it in the 
inbox using searches, this was the last mail I received on the subject.

On 2018-10-26 18:31, Eben Moglen wrote:
> On Friday, 26 October 2018, visionsofalice@redchan.it wrote:
> 
>   You are conflating case law dealing with commercial software and
>   non-gratuitous licenses with the present situation, which would 
> likely
>   be a case of first-impression in nearly any jurisdiction.
> 
> I think the best procedure would be for me to publish my analysis and
> for you then to tell me what is wrong with it.  What you say here
> sounds like what a lawyer might say, but isn't.  I have been teaching
> this stuff for about thirty years, so if I am conflating or confusing
> anything I will be grateful for help in seeing my mistake.
> 
>   The rule for gratuitous licenses is that they are revocable at the 
> will
>   of the grantor.
> 
> That's not actually "the rule."  It sounds like it might be the rule,
> but it so happens that it's not.  When I have given the explanation as
> I have learned, taught and depended on it, you will be able to show me
> what I am wrong about.
> 
>   Raymond Nimmer (God rest his soul) was in agreement on this point,
>   vis-a-vis the GPL and similar licenses.
> 
> You have your Nimmers confused.  The primary author of the treatise
> Nimmer on Copyright (a book about the law, not in itself an authority)
> was Melville Nimmer.  The treatise is continued by his son, David, a
> fine lawyer with whom I do from time to time politely disagree about
> something.  Ray Nimmer is quite another person.
> 
> Eben