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

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: <CAGmj6qv9k+24qvA9Kxik797cx07=_qJdkxYU-39SFG0tu50HNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:15:24 +0200
From:   Martin Schroeder <mkschreder.uk@...glemail.com>
To:     dreamingforward@...il.com
Cc:     observerofaffairs@...chan.it, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dng@...ts.dyne.org, debian-user@...ts.debian.org
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind.
 (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).

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@...il.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