Story

>No, that's NOT what you said... You said they were talking about GPLv3, remember? Now that I've thoroughly discredited that claim, you choose to switch your claim around to something else entirely.

Incorrect. Both licenses were discussed in contrast. You have discredited nothing.
V3 of the GPL was mentioned only to highlight the lack of a no-revocation clause and the sudden
realization by the FSF that one was needed.
Why was there this sudden realization: because previously they were unaware of the revocability
of a license at the will of the property owner. Very basic property law, but perhaps they didn't
even know where the ability to alienate property comes from or that copyright is considered a form
of personal property. Why were they unaware of this? Because they had no training in the law and no ability to hire someone who did. Their work was done by no or low paid volenteers. v3 Came out once they had
some money (via grant IIRC) and publicity due to the success of linux.

Go read my above posts again. I'll help you:
"Not when they drafted v2. That was before stallman got the 1mill grant even, IIRC."
"Some points: The GPL's own website talks about the current version, v3, which rectify many issues with v2. Linux is licensed under v2. Can't be re-licensed because there are so many copyright holders. It's stuck with v2."
"IE: Once the permission to modify linux is revoked, no further work on grsecurity may commence: it's over.
(The license of Linux (GPLv2) lacks a no-revocation clause, GPLv3 had to be drafted for a reason (adding one in) (so you could attempt to argue estoppel)) (Licenses are revokable at will barring estoppel)"
"Short story: If the GPLv2 is a license then we simply revoke spenglers permission to modify the linux source code. There's no 'no-revocation' clause. This is why the GPLv3 had to be drafted. Licenses arise from property law, read up on them. They are not a product of copyright law as all lay techies suppose."

>No, that's NOT what you said... You said they were talking about GPLv3, remember?
Care to rescind your statement, or are you just going to hide this comment too?

>I provided multiple sources for the non-revocability of the GPL. You've provided NO SOURCES for your claim, just your own paranoid delusions based upon very little reading of the law, and an overabundance of willful ignorance.

Immaterial, the linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2. Grsecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel.
Everybody knows this. Try to keep up. Don't you remeber the debates about relicensing when GPLv3 came our, and how it was impossible with linux, or were you not yet around for that?

It is you who is trying to change the goal posts. That doesn't matter however: linux's license is not going to change so go and pound sand you fool.

>And look, here's yet another source that's right on-the-nose:
>I don't understand how you think you can argue with the legal sources I've cited,
Ofcourse you don't, you don't even understand that you haven't cited one legal source.

You've cited no statute, no case, no restatement, not even a respected treatise.

How does it feel to be the ignorant fool for once. Your square glasses aren't going to help you here.

Come back when you can make and understand a legal argument.
(or maybe you'll just hide comments, that's more like you).

Hand-waving doesn't change the fact that a license is revocable at will, barring estoppel.