From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4CBC433F4 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 10:41:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6697621529 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 10:41:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com header.i=@googlemail.com header.b="sV0PWLOX" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6697621529 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=googlemail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732247AbeITQYI (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:24:08 -0400 Received: from mail-ua1-f45.google.com ([209.85.222.45]:44209 "EHLO mail-ua1-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726610AbeITQYH (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:24:07 -0400 Received: by mail-ua1-f45.google.com with SMTP id m11-v6so4283200uao.11 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 03:41:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xaODmu8LJz1bzDD00tbsApu1todrMpQy7HdQ8oFrrLk=; b=sV0PWLOX4+bdsAJ84Ps+WhzPPyf2VCz3f+saaOxaNhYcQKu6HABAPUqxF20Yt6AwaG gfLrOzFckfFXGE7z5wo8t7LWA+xYdXVpfaDpN/12O/uVdMSHICQ28QrFTPWnNMLIuXF/ GzGxQXzVEiYsYCYGomB+iLQ42S/8Li3KBoLHFbSe/GnmkeGTzKpzJ37KxBVKBLEOQf0D QdMlpO8p+k0/rtpfddm2/S2JtIWfJEhrPG9ME+i/XUxiK9z+KIltSknZdzNCxxl2MGWo gBM8Z1Tx1Tn1GSEMif9dD5ND+2Do4UYnZqJiQlmuuy6O/n0GWX7TluKvbIVO830FBv24 xuoQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xaODmu8LJz1bzDD00tbsApu1todrMpQy7HdQ8oFrrLk=; b=fy6VxwAlQGhOO0N3btUjchupzVdlqXDCjghoAeY88W9CK/LAPB5S2z7Ad5QY046ttP qfplrBOyZrvtE/siNEXBhz2OxQycp+4YtXA1nl0IHx6SZzDO7E7e6Mz6BsvngdKQ+EKe UXq4L04OZh/c5UQhxE04aXEgBalGlGtrdTfKi/f0q3gcA7b0IMm75bOq2JVdaD5VTRh1 H1F5vjsMRw99geyc7oTZhLEDUdpoGeXmj/Cb1vHF+Wo3a23aIPb8H5Qz55A0J3Hjg7K1 x3cbnpZTatKVtQtbAX5IWi4mxlBdTr3aKFbW18kMmgOLw7eQBswpN8O1DPLiAHsF5Ngb bPnw== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51ByYt37yNUkfZdJ8WVVMVhk5vUOqc2bDjrc/LPKKnJFdIUedD4c 2z+kaCvVKxbcrbw8AKLOiYLysAyBAV1rJhgXLRA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0Vdbn8zCJ1n7mU+Zt9h4TyBCwRoldkWP3p9cZMT/Cyq+E5iMjyJOXnV5cLL1l/oXX8GO3ic/zgdZEmLZtaz/qLIA= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:6352:: with SMTP id f18-v6mr12128525uap.76.1537440075981; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 03:41:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6b4a0cf6fa672938b8ab98acd1dea0a1@redchan.it> <24cf6d6095c740903f16b56e22dd137c@redchan.it> <996c99ea4146a247730d87df14dfca1a@redchan.it> <0bd7fb92f5b2d5f18e67fdc9b3f6e603@redchan.it> <77f81bcb07d6a9193992f87dbd040658@redchan.it> In-Reply-To: From: Martin Schroeder Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:41:03 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings). To: dreamingforward@gmail.com Cc: observerofaffairs@redchan.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dng@lists.dyne.org, debian-user@lists.debian.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 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 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