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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGmj6qvbBAjthtT8kLaYwjyd9Vqwv9iWj44YbuGk4UQgr_VHdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:41:03 +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).

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@...glemail.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@...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