"Each kernel release is a different work; the chances that any given piece of code has been modified in a new release are pretty high. One could argue that each kernel release comes with its own license; the termination of one does not necessarily affect rights to other releases."
Read right over that. But I suspect they can still just download another copy, as the second download would be a new offer, and they can then agree and comply with that one.
You could also align the pointer over the button, shine a laser pointer on your mouse button, and have your cat click it for you. Since you didn't click the button, you didn't accept the license. Arguably.
Term 5? All that says is if you don't accept the terms, you don't get to use the software. There's no irrevocable termination of rights.
At worst, all they have to do is download a new copy of mount and presto, they have a new license.
[err, that's for gpl2. gpl3 has a more complicated termination procedure.]
ok, so in light of gpl3, they just need to go back and get a gpl2 copy of mount. It's not like mount has changed all that much, I'm sure the 2007 version will suffice. Or they could just write their own. How many lines of code are we talking about here?
One of the causes of the Revolution was lack of representation and a means to change the law. Now that we have a representative government as a result of that war, one might hope we would use it.
Did any of those people disagree with him before? Has he changed anyone's opinion? If he had said the opposite, that the verdict was correct, would anyone here say "hmmm, he's given me a lot to think about."? Or would they just say, "it's so sad to see a legend lose touch."?
In the US, it's hovered right around 50% for a while, though it's climbed up between 55-60% for the past couple elections. More people don't vote than vote for any candidate. I would agree less than 30% isn't default, but 45% isn't less than 30.