* Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
[not found] ` <0bd7fb92f5b2d5f18e67fdc9b3f6e603@redchan.it>
@ 2018-09-19 15:12 ` observerofaffairs
2018-09-19 17:22 ` \0xDynamite
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: observerofaffairs @ 2018-09-19 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: dng, debian-user
It would depend on the communications made by the copyright holder, or
ratifications made by him (if any). Estopple arises when a grantee relys
on the grantors' communication that he will not rescind, and the grantor
takes an action based on that communication.
The clause in version 3 of the GPL (aswell as the CC licenses etc)
furnishes a clear possibility of such a defense.
Version 2 of the GPL lacks such a clause, so one must look to the
communications of the contributing copyright holder's statements, etc.
(Another problem is that the contributor may have never communicated to
the people he might want to rescind from, which adds another hurdle to
an estopple defense)
For instance, if the contributor was queried on the topic and gave a
response publicly, then the next question would be "did the defendant
know of and rely on that statement".
The linux-kernel's ... lassie-fair ... attitude when it comes to formal
matters and the sheer volume of contributors makes one wonder if
anything of the sort was done.
It is, indeed, a problem for Free-Software in the United States, as
copyright is simply "alienable in all ways property is"; and a licensor,
barring an attached interest or contract terms or communications that
would give rise to estopple, has an absolute right to rescind a license
regarding his property at his will; which is one feature that
distinguishes a license from an easement, servitude, real covenant, etc.
(Note: My projects dual license GPLv2 and GPLv3 for this reason: v3
furnishes an estoppel defense, v2 makes everyone happy because it's
"what they know", the linux-kernel never made any real attempts to adopt
the new license and omitted the "any-later-version codicil" from the
very beginning)
On 2018-09-19 03:38, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> > One is rescission of the license they granted regarding their code,
> and
> > then a lawsuit under copyright if/when the rescission is ignored.
> > The others are breach of contract, libel, false light, etc.
>
> If "rescission" is really a possibility, it would cause greast trouble
> for the free software community. We would need to take steps to make
> sure it cannot happen.
>
> However, that goes against everything I have been told by others.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
2018-09-19 15:12 ` Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings) observerofaffairs
@ 2018-09-19 17:22 ` \0xDynamite
2018-09-20 10:15 ` Martin Schroeder
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: \0xDynamite @ 2018-09-19 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: observerofaffairs; +Cc: linux-kernel, dng, debian-user
> On 2018-09-19 03:38, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
>> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
>> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>>
>> > One is rescission of the license they granted regarding their code,
>> and
>> > then a lawsuit under copyright if/when the rescission is ignored.
>> > The others are breach of contract, libel, false light, etc.
>>
>> If "rescission" is really a possibility, it would cause greast trouble
>> for the free software community. We would need to take steps to make
>> sure it cannot happen.
>>
>> However, that goes against everything I have been told by others.
This is where copyright differs from IP. With copyright, you have the
right to derived works if they don't violate Fair Use -- but that
could essentially be violating the GPL.
The only way to protect the code and spirit of the GPL at that point,
is to accept the legal concept of Intellectual Property.
The question then, is, is source code released under the GPL
considered "published work"?
Mark Janssen, JD
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
2018-09-19 17:22 ` \0xDynamite
@ 2018-09-20 10:15 ` Martin Schroeder
2018-09-20 10:41 ` Martin Schroeder
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Martin Schroeder @ 2018-09-20 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dreamingforward; +Cc: observerofaffairs, linux-kernel, dng, debian-user
If the license clearly states that permission is granted to any third
party to use the code provided that the same rights are granted to
everyone else who uses the subsequently distributed versions, wouldn't
the original holder who is willing to rescind the license fully also
be liable to compensate everyone involved for damages caused by such a
rescission?
It would only sound reasonable to me. You can not first grant
something and then revoke that grant and expect that it can be done
without consequences. If that becomes possible then there is no point
in giving the grant in the first place. It would sound reasonable that
there should be plenty of room for a counter lawsuit that would focus
on how much damage a complete revocation would cause to everyone who
have originally accepted the grant and then went with it. It is
crucial I think that rescission of a grant (not just any license) be
made close to impossible to accomplish after the grant has been made
in the first place and the work has been made public.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 7:22 PM \0xDynamite <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2018-09-19 03:38, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> >> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> >> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> >>
> >> > One is rescission of the license they granted regarding their code,
> >> and
> >> > then a lawsuit under copyright if/when the rescission is ignored.
> >> > The others are breach of contract, libel, false light, etc.
> >>
> >> If "rescission" is really a possibility, it would cause greast trouble
> >> for the free software community. We would need to take steps to make
> >> sure it cannot happen.
> >>
> >> However, that goes against everything I have been told by others.
>
> This is where copyright differs from IP. With copyright, you have the
> right to derived works if they don't violate Fair Use -- but that
> could essentially be violating the GPL.
>
> The only way to protect the code and spirit of the GPL at that point,
> is to accept the legal concept of Intellectual Property.
>
> The question then, is, is source code released under the GPL
> considered "published work"?
>
> Mark Janssen, JD
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
2018-09-20 10:15 ` Martin Schroeder
@ 2018-09-20 10:41 ` Martin Schroeder
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Martin Schroeder @ 2018-09-20 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dreamingforward; +Cc: observerofaffairs, linux-kernel, dng, debian-user
Rescission of GPL for reasons other than violating the terms of the
license would be a ridiculous form copyright trolling which, if still
possible, should definitely be outlawed.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:15 PM Martin Schroeder
<mkschreder.uk@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> If the license clearly states that permission is granted to any third
> party to use the code provided that the same rights are granted to
> everyone else who uses the subsequently distributed versions, wouldn't
> the original holder who is willing to rescind the license fully also
> be liable to compensate everyone involved for damages caused by such a
> rescission?
>
> It would only sound reasonable to me. You can not first grant
> something and then revoke that grant and expect that it can be done
> without consequences. If that becomes possible then there is no point
> in giving the grant in the first place. It would sound reasonable that
> there should be plenty of room for a counter lawsuit that would focus
> on how much damage a complete revocation would cause to everyone who
> have originally accepted the grant and then went with it. It is
> crucial I think that rescission of a grant (not just any license) be
> made close to impossible to accomplish after the grant has been made
> in the first place and the work has been made public.
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 7:22 PM \0xDynamite <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2018-09-19 03:38, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > >> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> > >> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> > >> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> > >>
> > >> > One is rescission of the license they granted regarding their code,
> > >> and
> > >> > then a lawsuit under copyright if/when the rescission is ignored.
> > >> > The others are breach of contract, libel, false light, etc.
> > >>
> > >> If "rescission" is really a possibility, it would cause greast trouble
> > >> for the free software community. We would need to take steps to make
> > >> sure it cannot happen.
> > >>
> > >> However, that goes against everything I have been told by others.
> >
> > This is where copyright differs from IP. With copyright, you have the
> > right to derived works if they don't violate Fair Use -- but that
> > could essentially be violating the GPL.
> >
> > The only way to protect the code and spirit of the GPL at that point,
> > is to accept the legal concept of Intellectual Property.
> >
> > The question then, is, is source code released under the GPL
> > considered "published work"?
> >
> > Mark Janssen, JD
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAK2MWOssGczVO1Cd_SPVVb=ieCs2vkpFUfve9P3sh+gT1VfN7Q@mail.gmail.com>]
* Code of Conduct: Those Ejected should rescind their license grant.
@ 2018-09-20 3:39 unconditionedwitness
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: unconditionedwitness @ 2018-09-20 3:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dng, linux-kernel, debian-user
The grant is not supported by consideration.
It dispenses only largess, and asks for no recompense.
It is a bare license.
Thus it can be revoked by the grantor at any time.
His act of grace bestowed, and his act of propriety can rescind.
The free software world is held up muchly by a gentleman's agreement.
The agreement is that we shall take mutually beneficial actions, vis a
vis the field of software engineering, to increase the net freedom
available to all.
It is not so much held up by law, regardless of what the lay programmers
and users of programmers would imagine to believe.
To turn one's contributions around as a weapon against the contributor:
to tell him he must not say this or that, he must not act this or that
way,
lest he be barred from his hobby; let he be barred from freely giving
dispensation, is an abhorrent abuse of his magnanimity
Now this gentleman's agreement is being, or has been shattered.
You will find that the law has no supports to bind him;
but many to fell the ungrateful who saw themselves the inviolate
annuitants of his altruism.
Bare licenses are revocable at will. They always have been.
Those who are thrown out of the "Linux Kernel Community" in punishment
for not obeying this CoC, who's past contributions count for nothing in
the face of those who will throughout the ages to control men in all
things; for not "behaving properly" here or there, within their public
or private life; for not bending the knee to the Anglo-American
religion, should absolutely recind the grant they have dispensed.
They are well within their rights to do so, and hostile action must be
met with the same and worse in response.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Code of Conduct: Those Ejected should rescind their license grant.
@ 2018-09-20 3:45 unconditionedwitness
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: unconditionedwitness @ 2018-09-20 3:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
The grant is not supported by consideration.
It dispenses only largess, and asks for no recompense.
It is a bare license.
Thus it can be revoked by the grantor at any time.
His act of grace bestowed, and his act of propriety can rescind.
The free software world is held up muchly by a gentleman's agreement.
The agreement is that we shall take mutually beneficial actions, vis a
vis the field of software engineering, to increase the net freedom
available to all .
It is not so much held up by law, regardless of what the lay programmers
and users of programmers would imagine to believe.
To turn one's contributions around as a weapon against the contributor:
to tell him he must not say this or that, he must not act this or that
way,
lest he be barred from his hobby; let he be barred from freely giving
dispensation, is an abhorrent abuse of his magnanimity
Now this gentleman's agreement is being, or has been shattered.
You will find that the law has no supports to bind him;
but many to fell the ungrateful who saw themselves the inviolate
annuitants of his altruism.
Bare licenses are revocable at will. They always have been.
Those who are thrown out of the "Linux Kernel Community" in punishment
for not obeying this CoC, who's past contributions count for nothing in
the face of those who will throughout the ages to control men in all
things; for not "behaving properly" here or there, within their public
or private life; for not bending the knee to the Anglo-American
religion, should absolutely recind the grant they have dispensed.
They are well within their rights to do so, and hostile action must be
met with the same and worse in response.
On 2018-09-19 17:09, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:33:58 +0000
> observerofaffairs@redchan.it wrote:
>
>> The CoC will lead only to infighting amongst the contributors, with
>> this new weapon wielded firmly in all participants hands.
>
> You've made your point. Now stop it. The remedies you suggest, if they
> could even be legally done, would hobble the Linux Kernel project, to
> the great delight of Google, Microsoft and Apple. Long observation of
> people resenting CoCs is they want the right to speak cruelly to
> individuals and speak cruelly about groups of people, those groups
> having nothing to do with the list's core foundation (Linux sans
> systemd, in our case). The person continuing to use terminology, having
> nothing to do with the core foundation of the mailing list, that others
> ask them not to use, has a real problem, and it's not the list's duty
> to help with that problem. The project is probably better off without
> the person --- his or her priorities are just plain wrong.
>
> Your posts are offtopic. You've made your point. Please stop now.
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@lists.dyne.org
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-09-28 17:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <6b4a0cf6fa672938b8ab98acd1dea0a1@redchan.it>
[not found] ` <BBFE2346-72C7-47D3-910A-DD720C7637DC@charter.net>
[not found] ` <24cf6d6095c740903f16b56e22dd137c@redchan.it>
[not found] ` <996c99ea4146a247730d87df14dfca1a@redchan.it>
[not found] ` <E1g2TJn-0006lD-Lm@fencepost.gnu.org>
[not found] ` <0bd7fb92f5b2d5f18e67fdc9b3f6e603@redchan.it>
2018-09-19 15:12 ` Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings) observerofaffairs
2018-09-19 17:22 ` \0xDynamite
2018-09-20 10:15 ` Martin Schroeder
2018-09-20 10:41 ` Martin Schroeder
[not found] ` <CAK2MWOssGczVO1Cd_SPVVb=ieCs2vkpFUfve9P3sh+gT1VfN7Q@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <4f926d0e5b96673926f3a4f163fdb590@redchan.it>
2018-09-19 15:33 ` Fwd: " observerofaffairs
[not found] ` <20180919130952.2b2c23cc@mydesk.domain.cxm>
2018-09-20 2:56 ` Code of Conduct: Those Ejected should rescind their license grant observerofaffairs
[not found] ` <EF2143AF-4090-414E-B00B-EBF07361C741@getbackinthe.kitchen>
[not found] ` <20180919213207.fx5ej6lopcdd7aft@katolaz.homeunix.net>
[not found] ` <20180920144659.3598e2cb@mydesk.domain.cxm>
[not found] ` <5BA3F750.3040908@signal100.com>
[not found] ` <8bd5d183-6606-2f3d-4f66-fa918c8831f3@gmx.com>
[not found] ` <CAK2MWOs1fmd8bLpWLJah+5Ckyke7SMnM46w-iKx9dENpBe7M4g@mail.gmail.com>
2018-09-28 17:09 ` [DNG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings) vwdfrwd
2018-09-20 3:39 Code of Conduct: Those Ejected should rescind their license grant unconditionedwitness
2018-09-20 3:45 unconditionedwitness
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).