On 12/16/22 09:58, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 9:40 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/15/22 20:23, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2022 2:39 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> This one really confuses me.  What effect would declaring the GPL to be
>>>> invalid actually have?
>>>
>>> That is a question for a lawyer.
>>>
>>> But as a non-lawyer I would say that if anyone got some
>>> software under GPL license and GPL was declared invalid
>>> then that person did not have a valid license for the
>>> software and would have to stop using it or risk being
>>> charged with copyright infringement.
>>
>> I expect the fact that it was made freely available on a very wide scale
>> would make that unlikely.
>>
>>> And a lot of stuff are under GPL: Linux, MySQL, GCC,
>>> WordPress etc..
>>>
>>>>               Mind you, I have never thought the GPL would
>>>> actually stand up in court if it faced a serious challenge.
>>>
>>> 25 years ago all businesses hated GPL.
>>>
>>> Today most business love if not GPL then at least GPL software.
>>>
>>> If it went to court and GPL lost in lower court, then I predict that
>>> the GPL defenders could collect a billions dollars to help with the
>>> appeal in an hour just by calling all the big IT companies.
>>
>> Or the other possibility being that those billions of dollars would
>> be applied to arguing that because it was given away with a totally
>> bogus license it has actually been released into the public domain.
>
> I am very skeptical about that.
>
> Copyright law and copyright decisions is very far from
> a philosophy of "available => legal to use". One need
> to have a license. And if someone make a deliberate
> choice to make code available under GPL, then it is
> obviously their intention to make it available under
> GPL not public domain (let us ignore the fact that
> public domain has some potential legal issues itself
> in the US). Code cannot by magic become available under
> other conditions than what the author intended.

The argument would be that because the license was based on legal
drivel it was never a license to begin with. Or do you actually
believe in the legal standing of "Copyleft". :-)

bill

On 12/16/2022 10:19 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 09:58, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 9:40 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 12/15/22 20:23, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/2022 2:39 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> This one really confuses me.  What effect would declaring the GPL
>>>>> to be
>>>>> invalid actually have?
>>>>
>>>> That is a question for a lawyer.
>>>>
>>>> But as a non-lawyer I would say that if anyone got some
>>>> software under GPL license and GPL was declared invalid
>>>> then that person did not have a valid license for the
>>>> software and would have to stop using it or risk being
>>>> charged with copyright infringement.
>>>
>>> I expect the fact that it was made freely available on a very wide scale
>>> would make that unlikely.
>>>
>>>> And a lot of stuff are under GPL: Linux, MySQL, GCC,
>>>> WordPress etc..
>>>>
>>>>>               Mind you, I have never thought the GPL would
>>>>> actually stand up in court if it faced a serious challenge.
>>>>
>>>> 25 years ago all businesses hated GPL.
>>>>
>>>> Today most business love if not GPL then at least GPL software.
>>>>
>>>> If it went to court and GPL lost in lower court, then I predict that
>>>> the GPL defenders could collect a billions dollars to help with the
>>>> appeal in an hour just by calling all the big IT companies.
>>>
>>> Or the other possibility being that those billions of dollars would
>>> be applied to arguing that because it was given away with a totally
>>> bogus license it has actually been released into the public domain.
>>
>> I am very skeptical about that.
>>
>> Copyright law and copyright decisions is very far from
>> a philosophy of "available => legal to use". One need
>> to have a license. And if someone make a deliberate
>> choice to make code available under GPL, then it is
>> obviously their intention to make it available under
>> GPL not public domain (let us ignore the fact that
>> public domain has some potential legal issues itself
>> in the US). Code cannot by magic become available under
>> other conditions than what the author intended.
>
> The argument would be that because the license was based on legal
> drivel it was never a license to begin with.

Yes.

But while i have no doubt that a license can be declared illegal,
then I do not see such a decision make the software available under
other terms - such a decision would just make the license go away.

>   Or do you actually
> believe in the legal standing of "Copyleft".  :-)

Actually I do.

It is a basically a contract. The user of the software get
permission to use the software given that
the user fulfill certain requirements. People have two
choices - they can accept the conditions, use the software
and live up to the license/contract requirements - or they can say
that they don't like the terms and go for some alternative
software.

As a starting point a contract is valid. There are cases
where contracts/licenses/EULA/ToS has been declared
illegal and void, but it is still very much exceptions.

Arne

In article <tnggn4$1dgm$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 12/14/2022 10:56 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> First of all, it is not necessary to run systemd, and there are
>> Linux distros that don't ship it.
>>
>> But if we're going to go there, now count vulnerabilities in
>> VMS...but apply the same microscope of research to VMS that we
>> do to Linux, to make it a fair comparison.
>
>Nobody knows what that would reveal.

Exactly. Meanwhile, people analyze Linux all the time.

>But it does not change the fact that there is a risk with
>systemd.

There may be a risk with some random GNU utility, too, which
doesn't affect Alpine Linux at all.

>And the topic was risk not vulnerability counts.

The point is, due to lack of investment and research, the risk
is much greater for VMS than for Linux.

>>> GPL being declared illegal by the supreme court.
>>
>> The GPL has been tested in court multiple times, and this has
>> never even been close to an outcome. Moreover, how many
>> large organizations have bet their collective farms on it?
>> If Google, Amazon, Meta, any number of government labs,
>> not to mention Fortune 500 companies are running Linux in
>> mission-critical roles, do you really think that is likely to
>> happen? Didn't their lawyers scrutinize it with respect to
>> existing caselaw?
>
>It is a risk greater than zero.

So is the sun exploding. So is Linus Torvalds getting hit by
a bus. So is a nuclear reactor melting down.

>You were the one that claimed a risk greater than zero
>was a problem.

What I claimed is that it is much riskier to go with VMS than
Linux. The risks that you point to with Linux are so unlikely
as to be negligible. On the other hand, the risks with VMS are
very, very real.

>It is not likely that GPL would be declared illegal. And
>if it did happen then it is not likely that a solution
>like a new license would not be found. So it is a very
>small risk.
>
>Everybody using Linux lives with that risk. No action
>considered necessary.

Precisely.

>>> VMS is not under GPL.
>>
>> No, it's not. What licenses _does_ it fall under?
>
>VMS is sold under a commercial license.

Yes. A very restrictive one.

>> I keep
>> hearing something about Oracle; suppose they try and sue VSI to
>> enforce some sort of rights?
>
>AFAIK there is nothing from Oracle in VMS.

RDB?

>> If we're talking nightmare
>> license scenarios, that seems more likely than the GPL being
>> nullified in US courts.
>
>I have a different opinion.

You can have any opinion you want, but the fact is, the license
situation with VMS is objectively more precarious than with the
GPL. C'mon, now, I'm quite sure you know this.

>>> VMS and Linux are different. There must be thousands/millions of
>>> things that could go wrong for VMS without impacting Linux
>>> and thousands/millions of things that could go wrong for Linux
>>> without impacting VMS.
>>
>> Yes, they are different. But if "systemd and the GPL" are the
>> best examples of risks people can come up with for Linux, it's
>> reinforcing my thesis that choosing Linux is a lot less risky
>> than choosing VMS.
>>
>> I contend that the number of risks for VMS is much greater than
>> the number for Linux; they're not even within the same order of
>> magnitude.
>
>Since you yesterday was not even aware that there were risks
>for Linux, then your opinion on that matter does not
>carry much weight.

The most charitable interpretation I can offer here is that you
are being deliberately obtuse to make a rhetorical point that is
not otherwise defendable.

- Dan C.

On 2022-12-16, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/15/22 20:23, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>> If it went to court and GPL lost in lower court, then I predict that
>> the GPL defenders could collect a billions dollars to help with the
>> appeal in an hour just by calling all the big IT companies.
>
> Or the other possibility being that those billions of dollars would
> be applied to arguing that because it was given away with a totally
> bogus license it has actually been released into the public domain.
>

That doesn't make any sense Bill.

The GPL is a permission to use software created by the author under
a set of conditions imposed by that author.

If the GPL is found to be something that cannot be imposed, then the
permission granted by the author is revoked, and hence nobody but the
author can use the software until they release it under a new licence.

There is no possible path from "the GPL is invalid" to "the author no
longer has any rights over the software they created" (which is what
public domain means).

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 12/16/2022 10:07 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <tng03p$35io8$1@dont-email.me>,
> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2022 2:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> Except Dave who thinks using VAX BASIC is the task. :-)
>>
>> Yeah, if you got over 40 years of development of a product that does exactly
>> what it's intended to do, you should just seriously consider pitching it, huh?
>
> If you can only run it on a system that may not exist in 5
> years, then yes.
>
> - Dan C.
>

The planet "MAY" not exist in 5 years!

Using that type of argument could mean that nothing ever gets done.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 12/16/2022 1:25 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 10:07 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <tng03p$35io8$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Dave Froble  <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, if you got over 40 years of development of a product that does
>>> exactly
>>> what it's intended to do, you should just seriously consider pitching
>>> it, huh?
>>
>> If you can only run it on a system that may not exist in 5
>> years, then yes.
>
> The planet "MAY" not exist in 5 years!
>
> Using that type of argument could mean that nothing ever gets done.

One evaluate the risk, whether anything can be done about it
and what is an appropriate action.

For a lot of the planet threatening risks there will be nothing
we can do. Sending up a drill crew to dump a nuke down inside an
asteroid is just a movie.

For the not-forever VMS licenses, then I think it is
a real issue, but an issue that should not cause panic.
Meaning no justification to run away screaming, but good
reason to bring the topic up when one talk to VSI. The
french group handled it the right way. If customers have
some concerns they bring it up with the vendor and if the
vendor hear it from enough customers, then they start
look for an acceptable solution.

Arne

On 12/16/22 13:11, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-12-16, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/15/22 20:23, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>
>>> If it went to court and GPL lost in lower court, then I predict that
>>> the GPL defenders could collect a billions dollars to help with the
>>> appeal in an hour just by calling all the big IT companies.
>>
>> Or the other possibility being that those billions of dollars would
>> be applied to arguing that because it was given away with a totally
>> bogus license it has actually been released into the public domain.
>>
>
> That doesn't make any sense Bill.
>
> The GPL is a permission to use software created by the author under
> a set of conditions imposed by that author.
>
> If the GPL is found to be something that cannot be imposed, then the
> permission granted by the author is revoked, and hence nobody but the
> author can use the software until they release it under a new licence.
>
> There is no possible path from "the GPL is invalid" to "the author no
> longer has any rights over the software they created" (which is what
> public domain means).

Actually, there is. The last time I read any of that drivel they
were having people sign their IP over to the FSF. So, if you are
right about what happens if the GPL fails in court, who ends out
owning the IP? he author or the FSF?

I expect that it will never be decided in court as this is another of
those things where either side stands to loose too much to ever let it
go that far. That's why people have successfully co-opted GPLed code
in the past without ever being dragged into court.

bill

On 12/16/2022 2:10 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 13:11, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-12-16, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/15/22 20:23, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If it went to court and GPL lost in lower court, then I predict that
>>>> the GPL defenders could collect a billions dollars to help with the
>>>> appeal in an hour just by calling all the big IT companies.
>>>
>>> Or the other possibility being that those billions of dollars would
>>> be applied to arguing that because it was given away with a totally
>>> bogus license it has actually been released into the public domain.
>>>
>>
>> That doesn't make any sense Bill.
>>
>> The GPL is a permission to use software created by the author under
>> a set of conditions imposed by that author.
>>
>> If the GPL is found to be something that cannot be imposed, then the
>> permission granted by the author is revoked, and hence nobody but the
>> author can use the software until they release it under a new licence.
>>
>> There is no possible path from "the GPL is invalid" to "the author no
>> longer has any rights over the software they created" (which is what
>> public domain means).
>
> Actually, there is.  The last time I read any of that drivel they
> were having people sign their IP over to the FSF.  So, if you are
> right about what happens if the GPL fails in court, who ends out
> owning the IP?  he author or the FSF?

Whoever owns the copyright. That is usually the author or the company
that paid the author. But IPR can be sold or given away.

FSF has a policy of having authors signover copyright for official
GNU software.

Some open source groups using GPL license like the Linux kernel team
does not do that.

Arne

In article <tnid7f$3e2h0$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>On 12/16/2022 10:07 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <tng03p$35io8$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, if you got over 40 years of development of a product that does exactly
>>> what it's intended to do, you should just seriously consider pitching it, huh?
>>
>> If you can only run it on a system that may not exist in 5
>> years, then yes.
>
>The planet "MAY" not exist in 5 years!

Yeah, because the planet not existing in 5 years is absolutely
in the same risk category as VSI being defunct in 5 years.

>Using that type of argument could mean that nothing ever gets done.

More things are done on Linux daily than have been done on VMS
in the history of VMS.

We're talking about relative risks here and how they motivate
software development here.

- Dan C.

On 12/16/2022 9:26 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <tnid7f$3e2h0$1@dont-email.me>,
> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 10:07 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <tng03p$35io8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> Yeah, if you got over 40 years of development of a product that does exactly
>>>> what it's intended to do, you should just seriously consider pitching it, huh?
>>>
>>> If you can only run it on a system that may not exist in 5
>>> years, then yes.
>>
>> The planet "MAY" not exist in 5 years!
>
> Yeah, because the planet not existing in 5 years is absolutely
> in the same risk category as VSI being defunct in 5 years.

Well, yeah, if the planet is gone, then most likely VSI will also be gone ..

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 12/17/2022 2:24 PM, John Dallman wrote:
> In article <tnjk1t$3jkpo$1@dont-email.me>, davef@tsoft-inc.com (Dave
> Froble) wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 9:26 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> Yeah, because the planet not existing in 5 years is absolutely
>>> in the same risk category as VSI being defunct in 5 years.
>> Well, yeah, if the planet is gone, then most likely VSI will also
>> be gone ..
>
> Oh, come on, Dave. There is a significant risk that VSI will not be in
> business in five years, if they cannot get enough paying customers for
> VMS.

Well, one way to insure that is to tell people they should not choose VMS, right?

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

In article <tnjk1t$3jkpo$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>On 12/16/2022 9:26 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <tnid7f$3e2h0$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2022 10:07 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article <tng03p$35io8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>> Yeah, if you got over 40 years of development of a product that does exactly
>>>>> what it's intended to do, you should just seriously consider pitching it, huh?
>>>>
>>>> If you can only run it on a system that may not exist in 5
>>>> years, then yes.
>>>
>>> The planet "MAY" not exist in 5 years!
>>
>> Yeah, because the planet not existing in 5 years is absolutely
>> in the same risk category as VSI being defunct in 5 years.
>
>Well, yeah, if the planet is gone, then most likely VSI will also be gone ..

In fairness, given the seriousness of climate change, that's a
decent point.

- Dan C.

In article <tnlh5n$3p703$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>On 12/17/2022 2:24 PM, John Dallman wrote:
>> In article <tnjk1t$3jkpo$1@dont-email.me>, davef@tsoft-inc.com (Dave
>> Froble) wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2022 9:26 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> Yeah, because the planet not existing in 5 years is absolutely
>>>> in the same risk category as VSI being defunct in 5 years.
>>> Well, yeah, if the planet is gone, then most likely VSI will also
>>> be gone ..
>>
>> Oh, come on, Dave. There is a significant risk that VSI will not be in
>> business in five years, if they cannot get enough paying customers for
>> VMS.
>
>Well, one way to insure that is to tell people they should not choose VMS, right?

No one is suggesting that, that I'm aware of.

In contrast, an almost sure way to insure that is to get mad at
the people who raise the tough questions the fans would rather
not answer, all the while avoiding those tough questions because
they're too negative, or whatever. To wit, if I, as a relative
fan of VMS, am asking these on USENET, what do you think that IT
people and those writing checks are going to be doing?

Figure out who the real enemy is.

- Dan C.

On 2022-12-18, Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>
> In contrast, an almost sure way to insure that is to get mad at
> the people who raise the tough questions the fans would rather
> not answer, all the while avoiding those tough questions because
> they're too negative, or whatever. To wit, if I, as a relative
> fan of VMS, am asking these on USENET, what do you think that IT
> people and those writing checks are going to be doing?
>

Those of us with a long period of VMS experience, but also experience
with the wider world and other operating systems, are also asking the
same questions. Also without any suitable answers.

> Figure out who the real enemy is.
>

Indeed. The enemy is NOT the person who cares enough about something
that they spend time thinking about that something and then asking
questions about issues they identify.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2022-12-19 02:43, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <tnjk1t$3jkpo$1@dont-email.me>,
> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 9:26 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <tnid7f$3e2h0$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2022 10:07 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>> In article <tng03p$35io8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Yeah, if you got over 40 years of development of a product that does exactly
>>>>>> what it's intended to do, you should just seriously consider pitching it, huh?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can only run it on a system that may not exist in 5
>>>>> years, then yes.
>>>>
>>>> The planet "MAY" not exist in 5 years!
>>>
>>> Yeah, because the planet not existing in 5 years is absolutely
>>> in the same risk category as VSI being defunct in 5 years.
>>
>> Well, yeah, if the planet is gone, then most likely VSI will also be gone ..
>
> In fairness, given the seriousness of climate change, that's a
> decent point.

Not really. Climate change is not going to make the earth disappear. It
might not be habitable for humans any more, but the rock will still be
going around the sun. Probably still with some kind of biological
activities going on. Happened before. Will happen again.

Johnny

In article <tnsfaa$4pv$2@news.misty.com>,
Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
>On 2022-12-19 02:43, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <tnjk1t$3jkpo$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2022 9:26 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article <tnid7f$3e2h0$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/2022 10:07 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>> In article <tng03p$35io8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Yeah, if you got over 40 years of development of a product that does exactly
>>>>>>> what it's intended to do, you should just seriously consider pitching it, huh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can only run it on a system that may not exist in 5
>>>>>> years, then yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The planet "MAY" not exist in 5 years!
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, because the planet not existing in 5 years is absolutely
>>>> in the same risk category as VSI being defunct in 5 years.
>>>
>>> Well, yeah, if the planet is gone, then most likely VSI will also be gone ..
>>
>> In fairness, given the seriousness of climate change, that's a
>> decent point.
>
>Not really. Climate change is not going to make the earth disappear. It
>might not be habitable for humans any more, but the rock will still be
>going around the sun. Probably still with some kind of biological
>activities going on. Happened before. Will happen again.

Fair points on the specifics, but VSI still won't be around if
that happens.

- Dan C.