Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).

Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).

[observerofaffairs]

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.

Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).

[observerofaffairs]

The CoC will lead only to infighting amongst the contributors, with this 
new weapon wielded firmly in all participants hands.

It is another example of "looking the gift horse in the mouth"
(Linus telling everyone to [fsck] off is the previous example]
and will only be tolerated by the hirelings. The community contributors 
will fade away and the complete corporate takeover of the kernel will be 
complete.

Linux will suffer the same fate as the FreeBSD team (who have lost half 
their contributors), additionally morally-questionable code (ie: code 
that befits content owners over the user, code that benefits the 
security interests of the states over the user, etc) will be folded into 
the kernel with a smile.

While you are correct regarding most free-software and open-culture 
licenses, which often include a no-rescission clause, or are stylized as 
a contract (giving rise to a possible interest defense), it does not 
apply to version 2 of the GPL specifically (remeber: Linus rejected the 
any-later-version codicil, thus any license improvements are out of 
reach regarding the kernel, and v3 has very important improvements). 
Version 2 of the GPL creates no contractual interests, nor does it 
contain language that would give clear indication to the grantee that 
his license will never be revoked by the property owner (who has an 
absolute right to revoke grants at will, where there is no interest 
attached to the grant etc).

The Free Software movement is, and will continue to be decimated by this 
industry-wide advance for the next 5 years at-least, as project after 
project falls to classic divide and conquer techniques that date to 
before the Roman empire. Programmers, though brilliant in their specific 
field, tend to be ignorant of even basic human management practice - and 
resistant to learn.


On 2018-09-19 08:43, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I concur with Richard. Everything I know about the license tells me it
> can not be rescinded or withdrawn. It can only be terminated for
> infringement.
> 
> I understand that codes of conduct added to the group long after your
> first participation are frustrating for some, and may even seem
> draconian. I see the need for them, and suggest you consider the views
> of others.
> 
> If you have no alternative, the license allows you to fork the project
> and make your own conduct rules.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bruce
> 
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018, 5:38 AM Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> 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.
>> 
>> --
>> Dr Richard Stallman
>> President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org,
>> https://fsf.org)
>> Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Re: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).

[\0xDynamite]

> 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

Code of Conduct: Those Ejected should rescind their license grant.

[observerofaffairs]

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

Re: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).

[Martin Schroeder]

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

Re: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).

[Martin Schroeder]

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

Re: [DNG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).

[vwdfrwd]

Would trade it all, to be-able to marry cute young girls (as allowed by 
YHWH (Devarim chapter 22, verse 28 (na'ar)) (also, obviously, in Sunni 
Islam (see 5th book of Bukhari)).

Banning men from having girl children as brides is the first thing you 
"SJW"s (aka "whites") did over 100 years ago.

And yes, Bruce Perens, we blaim you and yours for upholding said ban.

Thankfully Sunni muslims will be overtaking your countries soon.
They will lift the ban that you "whites" installed (in your reverent 
worship of women), God willing.

On 2018-09-27 21:11, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I'm that Social Justice Warrior that you don't like. And if you are
> using Devuan or Debian, if you've gotten a ham radio license since
> 2007, or if you're doing various Open Source things you have already
> benefited from things I've done in the name of social justice. So
> would you please be more careful about who you think is evil.
> 
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018, 13:21 Taiidan@gmx.com <Taiidan@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
>> "Code of conduct" type policies are absolute bullshit meant to ruin
>> and
>> divide a community with conflict and strife.
>> 
>> I can't understand what has happened - perhaps "they" got to linus
>> somehow?
>> 
>> The people they want out are the ones who reject changes like rdrand
>> etc.
>> 
>> This is a plot to destroy linux and make it a corporate drone
>> project -
>> but hey after all I guess we aren't "ethical" enough like suicide
>> net
>> apple or killer drone software google so the cool kids are out to
>> get us.
>> 
>> The CoC snowflake types contribute nothing real and make absolutely
>> nothing innovative of course but yet somehow they always make the
>> rules?
>> what the hell? I bet they don't even use linux as their daily
>> driver.
>> 
>> We didn't vote to have a CoC it was forced on us like all these
>> changes.
>> 
>> Good things do not have to be forced on a community instead they are
>> voted for not shoved down our throats, a minority making the rules
>> for
>> the majority.
>> 
>> Female and minority coders plus community contributors such as
>> Joanna
>> Rutkowska who created qubes[1] and Leah Rowe who created
>> libreboot[2]
>> are both respectable and respected because they make real
>> contributions
>> to the world unlike the CoC jerks.
>> 
>> [1]Arguably the best security innovation and security operating
>> system
>> since the millennium.
>> 
>> [2]Leah kept the computing freedom movement going by spending 100K+
>> of
>> her own money on libre firmware ports for modern motherboards - I
>> also
>> believe without her bringing to life the kgpe-d16/kcma-d8 libre
>> firmware
>> ports there wouldn't have been a talos 2 either.
>> The end of owner controlled computing hardware was very, very
>> narrowly
>> averted thanks to them and a few others.
>> 
>> Note: I am always nice to people no matter their skin color,
>> political
>> leanings or who they want to date - I treat others as I wish to be
>> treated so I am not one of steve litt's hypothetical examples.
>> 
>> Hell how many of these SJW types have like to offer their seat on
>> the
>> bus/train to a tired non-white person because they too know what it
>> is
>> like to be tired and poor? zero.
>> 
>> They have cushy lives and invent fake problems because they do not
>> have
>> any real ones of their own to deal with.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dng mailing list
>> Dng@lists.dyne.org
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@lists.dyne.org
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng