linux-kernel - An attached interest is essential to argue that rescission is improper: you must have paid the owner for such an attached interest.

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

Date:   Tue, 01 Jan 2019 23:54:37 +0000
From:   vsnsdualce@...eware.net
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gentoo-user@...ts.gentoo.org,
        ubuntu-users@...ts.ubuntu.com, debian-user@...ts.debian.org
Cc:     freebsd-women@...ebsd.org, freebsd-chat@...ebsd.org,
        misc@...nbsd.org
Subject: An attached interest is essential to argue that rescission is
 improper: you must have paid the owner for such an attached interest.

>> 1015331

> You cannot revoke the GPL license, having no attached interest is 
> meaningless.

It is not meaningless, it is essential.

For you to have an attached interest, you must secure it.

And you must secure it from the property owner.

> The GPL is a commercial distribution license.

It is not. Nothing was payed to many 1000s of property owners for them 
to forgo their default rights, nor did they disclaim them in the 
license, nor were they paid for said non-existent disclaimers.

> People are allowed to distribute GPL software and they are allowed to 
> make a big profit by doing this.

Until the license is revoked.

All your "rights" stem from the choice of the property owner to alienate 
his property as he sees fit.

Here he has chosen to alienate his property very little: he has simply 
granted a license (not a transfer). He may revoke this grant at his 
leasure since it is not secured by an interest.

You paid nothing to Owner. Owner gave nothing to you. He is simply 
allowing you to temporarily use his property. He can end this permission 
when he wishes.

You then must prove that you paid him to not use this property right of 
his, and that he gave to you (in return for this payment in money, 
performance, goods) a promise to forgo this right of his.

You cannot show that. You have no right to prevent him from recovering 
his property. In this case the code.

He can say: nope, you cannot use it any-longer in new editions of this 
software. Then the burden is on you to show the court where he sold you 
some right that runs counter to his default rights in his own property.

He never did so, so you have nothing to show.

> >>1015264
> >Without an attached interest you can very well revoke the license and prevent all further distribution of your code, and further use of it in future versions.
> 
> You cannot revoke the GPL license, having no attached interest is 
> meaningless. The GPL is a commercial distribution license. People are 
> allowed to distribute GPL software and they are allowed to make a big 
> profit by doing this.