Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? - Bradley M. Kuhn is not an attorney (he should go get his JD and get licensed).

Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? - Bradley M. Kuhn is not an attorney (he should go get his JD and get licensed).

[vsnsdualce2]

> of the GPL.  (And Bradley Kuhn is a lawyer -- my older mind can't 
> remember if
> he was the lawyer who argued (and lost) a previous free software case 
> (don't
> remember the details) in front of the US Supreme Court.  (Sometimes 
> referred

rhkramer@gmail.com:
Bradley M. Kuhn is not an attorney, which is why he had to step down as 
head
of his organization and hire a lawyer to head the organization
in his place: Bar rules do not allow lawyers to serve under a non-lawyer 
in
an organization, and the organization was essentially a pro-bono law 
firm
(which really needed a attorney in it's ranks...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_M._Kuhn

Yes the "oh I just stepped down because we need a woman to head this 
organization
now" claim he makes is, in fact, disingenuous. What they needed is a 
lawyer in
the organization: and the lawyer could not be directed by non-lawyers.

http://ebb.org/bkuhn/
> Kuhn holds a summa cum laude B.S. in Computer Science from Loyola 
> University in Maryland, and an M.S. in Computer Science from the 
> University of Cincinnati.

http://ebb.org/bkuhn/resume/
No J.D., No law license.


I have both.

I don't want to drag someone down, but I had to correct your mistake.
Once he applies to law school, gets his degree, and later his license 
I'm sure he will correct his as well.


On 2019-01-28 00:35, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 27, 2019 07:24:17 PM rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>> Resending to the list -- I didn't notice that Ivan had sent this to me
>> only, and my reply, of course, then went to him only.
>> 
>> On Sunday, January 27, 2019 10:06:46 AM Ivan Ivanov wrote:
>> > Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare
>> > license and is revocable by the grantor. Search for "vsnsdualce" "gpl"
>> > online to find his messages which prove that, he is a lawyer and has
>> > investigated this subject very well. I am CC'ing him in case you'd
>> > like to request more information. So if you didn't like the Code of
>> > Conduct covertly accepted behind the scenes against your will, and
>> > maybe some other questionable political decisions in technical
>> > projects
> 
> ...
> 
>> I *might* go read some of the stuff by vsnsdualce, but the Weboob 
>> situation
>> is not an example of a (free or GPL) license being rescinded.  (You 
>> didn't
>> quite say it was, but one could infer that is what you are trying to 
>> say
>> by its inclusion in the same paragraph.)
> 
> Ok, I went and read a few things by "vsnsdualce" re the GPL, in 
> particular:
> 
> http://readlist.com/lists/gentoo.org/gentoo-user/42/213256.html
> 
> And from that, I went to:
> 
> https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4
> 
> It seems clear that this is one of those things that I talked about in 
> my
> previous last paragraph (the aside, still quoted below) -- vsnsdualce 
> is
> stating his opinion / taking a position that is in opposition to the 
> postions
> / opinions of other lawyers.
> 
> I don't know how far he is willing to go to try to confirm his 
> position, but
> until a court case or something similar (and probably appeals) decides 
> the
> issue, there are two opinions.
> 
> If I had to guess / be which would prevail, I would bet on the side of
> copyleft.org who, in a way are the successors (mcow) to the original 
> author(s)
> of the GPL.  (And Bradley Kuhn is a lawyer -- my older mind can't 
> remember if
> he was the lawyer who argued (and lost) a previous free software case 
> (don't
> remember the details) in front of the US Supreme Court.  (Sometimes 
> referred
> to as "the supremes", but they don't really sing that well (well, to be 
> fair,
> I guess I never heard them sing ;-)
> 
> Even if he was the guy that lost that case (I'm fairly sure it was 
> someone
> else), he is certainly a very experienced lawyer, and very familiar 
> with the
> issues around this license.  I would trust his opinion more that I 
> would
> "vsnsdualce"'s.
> 
> ...
> 
>> 
>> Just another aside: One of my takes on lawyers is that they interpret 
>> laws
>> and take legal positions for various reasons, often to further their 
>> own
>> or their client's interests, and then are willing to fight the legal
>> battle that may ensue.  A lawyer expressing an opinion does not make 
>> that
>> opinion correct / legal.

Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? - Bradley M. Kuhn is not an attorney (he should go get his JD and get licensed).

[rhkramer]

On Sunday, May 05, 2019 12:51:15 AM vsnsdualce2@redchan.it wrote:
> Bar rules do not allow lawyers to serve under a non-lawyer
> in
> an organization, and the organization was essentially a pro-bono law
> firm
> (which really needed a attorney in it's ranks...)

That's interesting, but (off the point of this email exchange), it puzzles me 
-- many corporations headed by non-lawyers have lawyers on staff, so I'm 
guessing that the statement you made applies only to organizations like law 
firms, or, the lawyers on the staff of a non-law corporation are in something at 
least a little different than the normal employer / employee relationship.

(PS: I stand corrected on Kuhn being a lawyer -- thanks for the correction.)

Now I have to debate (with myself) whether to prune the cc list -- I forget 
the original post -- was it really this widespread?

Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? - Bradley M. Kuhn is not an attorney (he should go get his JD and get licensed).

[Steve McIntyre]

On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 08:07:51AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>
>Now I have to debate (with myself) whether to prune the cc list -- I forget 
>the original post -- was it really this widespread?

It's just bullshit trolling. Multiple different From: addresses, all
sent via cock.li. Easily blocked/ignored.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
There's no sensation to compare with this
Suspended animation, A state of bliss

Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? - Bradley M. Kuhn is not an attorney (he should go get his JD and get licensed).

[vsnsdualce2]

rhkramer@gmail.com:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_5_4_professional_independence_of_a_lawyer/

(Most state bar associations implement this or similar)



(b) A lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the 
activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law.
...
(d) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional 
corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit, if:

(1) a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary 
representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest 
of the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration;

(2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies 
the position of similar responsibility in any form of association other 
than a corporation ; or

(3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional 
judgment of a lawyer.

Steve McIntyre Wrote:
> It's just bullshit trolling. Multiple different From: addresses, all
> sent via cock.li. Easily blocked/ignored.

> --
> Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                
> >steve@einval.com
> There's no sensation to compare with this
> Suspended animation, A state of bliss

How about you shut you fucking mouth about professions you are not 
involved in?

Free licenses are revocable. They are simply permission and not backed 
by any bargained-for consideration. Weather you like it or not, Weather 
it gets you "mad" or not.



On 2019-05-05 12:07, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 05, 2019 12:51:15 AM vsnsdualce2@redchan.it wrote:
>> Bar rules do not allow lawyers to serve under a non-lawyer
>> in
>> an organization, and the organization was essentially a pro-bono law
>> firm
>> (which really needed a attorney in it's ranks...)
> 
> That's interesting, but (off the point of this email exchange), it 
> puzzles me
> -- many corporations headed by non-lawyers have lawyers on staff, so 
> I'm
> guessing that the statement you made applies only to organizations like 
> law
> firms, or, the lawyers on the staff of a non-law corporation are in
> something at
> least a little different than the normal employer / employee 
> relationship.
> 
> (PS: I stand corrected on Kuhn being a lawyer -- thanks for the 
> correction.)
> 
> Now I have to debate (with myself) whether to prune the cc list -- I 
> forget
> the original post -- was it really this widespread?