linux-kernel - Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200709041908.04232.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date:	Tue, 4 Sep 2007 19:08:04 -0400
From:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
To:	Michael Poole <mdpoole@...ilus.org>
Cc:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>, davids@...master.com,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing

On Tuesday 04 September 2007 15:44:31 Michael Poole wrote:
> Chris Friesen writes:
> > Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> >>>Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> writes:
> >>>>US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
> >>>>may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a
> >>>>specific person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but
> >>>> they do not apply to the situation that is being discussed)
> >
> > The OpenBSD policy page doesn't agree with you:
> >
> > "...That means that having granted a permission, the copyright holder
> > can not retroactively say that an individual or class of individuals
> > are no longer granted those permissions. Likewise should the copyright
> > holder decide to "go commercial" he can not revoke permissions already
> > granted for the use of the work as distributed, though he may impose
> > more restrictive permissions in his future distributions of that work."
> >
> > http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
>
> By my reading, this is supported by 17 USC 203(a)(3):
>
>   (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a
>       period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years
>       from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers
>       the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the
>       end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the
>       work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date
>       of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier.
>
> (from
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000203----000-
>.html )

Ah, I am both right and wrong, it seems. Apparently you have to wait anywhere 
form 35 to 40 years, and then you only have a five year window. Seems damned 
strange to me, but oh well.

(I'd totally forgotten that part of the law - or my mind decided to play 
tricks on me.)

DRH

PS: See, I will admit it when I'm shown evidence that I'm wrong :)

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/