linux-kernel - Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20080730233229.5ebe4465@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:32:29 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	davids@...master.com
Cc:	"Stefan Richter" <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

> Precisely. And others who wish to exercise rights under the GPL forfeit any
> legal mechanism (whether copyright, DMCA, contract, data privacy laws, or
> whatever theory) to impose "further restrictions" on those who wish to
> similarly use GPL works.

I don't know where you get that paticular idea from. Try sending GPL code
from the USA to Cuba. Seems the US government is using GPL code but
imposing further restrictions...

> have no control. But you cannot invoke copyright -- or any other law -- to
> restrict someone else's exercise of rights granter by the GPL. You get
> copyright, but you give up it all. No "further restrictions", period.

Some rights in laws are absolute. I cannot "give up" my right to be
identified as the author of a work I create in many countries. Its an
absolute.

> When you submit a unit to a GPL project, you place that unit under the GPL.
> That is what the DCoO is trying to say. There cannot be some things that
> some parts of the GPL apply to and some don't. There is no "sort of GPL,
> sort of not" that applies to some parts of some submissions. If something is
> part of or all of a submission made under the GPL, then all of the GPL
> applies to it.

The metadata licensing isn't clear in my view.

I think what you are more likely to get sensible results with is arguing
estoppel ? That was always the intent of that DCO wording. To ensure that
rights or otherwise you couldn't turn around and say "hey you published
my name and I didn't expect that implied by my actions".

However publishing a name and performing data processing on personal data
databases for other purposes is not the same thing at least in some
jurisdictions. In the EU you collect data "for a purpose".

Alan
--
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/