| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <m34piaftnd.fsf@maximus.localdomain> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:27:02 +0200 From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl> To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> Cc: davids@...master.com, "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing 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) Oh come on, I thought some small country in maybe central Africa, but certainly not USA. What you write would essentially mean GPL (and any other such licence) is invalid in the USA. The licence is basically a promise not to sue. It wouldn't make any sense to promise if you could revoke at will. > Ah, see - in the US the license(s) in question (and licenses in general) are > grants of rights, not a "statements of will". Right here grants of rights are some sort of statements of will. > (Truthfully, in the US a license > should be read with an implicit "All rights reserved") Actually (and I think it's the same in the USA), a copyrighted work has an implicit "all rights reserved". A licence is just exception. -- Krzysztof Halasa - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists