From: Martin Schroeder <mkschreder.uk@googlemail.com>
To: dreamingforward@gmail.com
Cc: observerofaffairs@redchan.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dng@lists.dyne.org, debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:41:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGmj6qvbBAjthtT8kLaYwjyd9Vqwv9iWj44YbuGk4UQgr_VHdw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGmj6qv9k+24qvA9Kxik797cx07=_qJdkxYU-39SFG0tu50HNg@mail.gmail.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-20 10:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[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 [this message]
[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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAGmj6qvbBAjthtT8kLaYwjyd9Vqwv9iWj44YbuGk4UQgr_VHdw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=mkschreder.uk@googlemail.com \
--cc=debian-user@lists.debian.org \
--cc=dng@lists.dyne.org \
--cc=dreamingforward@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=observerofaffairs@redchan.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).