Imagine if someone claimed copyrightable works and the alienation thereof, had nothing to do with property law, and infact were not property, and they just kept banging on that.
You try to explain to them that there is realty, personal property, and intellectual property (copyrighted works specifically), and that you grant rights to these via license (under property law) or contract.
And that licenses are revokable at the will of the licensor.
And that v2 of the GPL does not have a no-revokation clause, so you really want to argue it's a contract (which it isn't...), otherwise spengler's permission to modify the linux kernel can be revoked at will by any plaintiff (linux kernel contributor).
Then the person you're talking to says "you can't copyright land", and just keeps repeating that and "hahaha".
You try to explain to them that there is realty, personal property, and intellectual property (copyrighted works specifically), and that you grant rights to these via license (under property law) or contract.
And that licenses are revokable at the will of the licensor.
And that v2 of the GPL does not have a no-revokation clause, so you really want to argue it's a contract (which it isn't...), otherwise spengler's permission to modify the linux kernel can be revoked at will by any plaintiff (linux kernel contributor).
Then the person you're talking to says "you can't copyright land", and just keeps repeating that and "hahaha".
#grsecurity
irc.oftc.net