linux-kernel - "If the contract is non-revocable only when there is consideration is paid, then it would be impossible for the GPL to exist."

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]

Message-ID: <c75f9476bbe31c1efa0995b0c41c325a@memeware.net>
Date:   Fri, 04 Jan 2019 07:27:29 +0000
From:   vnsndalce@...eware.net
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gentoo-user@...ts.gentoo.org,
        misc@...nbsd.org
Cc:     esr@...rsus.com, moglen@...umbia.edu, rms@....org
Subject: "If the contract is non-revocable only when there is consideration is
 paid, then it would be impossible for the GPL to exist."

> If you have a contract to distribute software complete with 
> non-revocable interest, then there is absolutely no need for an extra 
> license on top
> of that to distribute the software. The contract would define the terms 
> of distribution and the software license would be meaningless to define 
> >the exact same terms as the contract. If the contract is non-revocable only when there is consideration is paid, then it would be impossible for
> the GPL to exist. The GPL exists to convey licenses to licensees who 
> may not have any direct connection to the grantor. If the GPL is only 
> valid
> between grantor and the direct licensee who has paid, then how is it 
> possible for any licensee to get the license to distribute the GPL 
> software >
> without directly contracting with the grantor?

Exactly.

Exactly.

Do you understand why the edifice the FSF built and which linus spurned, 
mocked, and ignored is essential now?

The FSF's plan for free-software was for contributors to assign their 
copyrights to the FSF, which is a 501(c)3 org (a non-profit, a charity). 
Then for it to distribute the software under the GPL(1 and later 2) to 
the rest of the people (for a fee ofcourse (see early emacs)). Promises 
to give a gift to a charity are generally irrevocable ( you learn this 
in law school, it is an exception to the general rule that promises are 
revocable absent consideration).

Then linus' way of doing things spread like wildfire, and now everyone 
was distributing code under the license, not require copyright 
assignment, and not being a (perhaps) charity for extra protection.

The FSF was careful in creating its citadel, with multiple levels of 
legal theory to protect the code from it's progenitors' whims, under the 
laws of the USA.

And linus said fuck that and fuck you RMS: you don't know what you're 
doing.

So they had to ret-conn the GPLv2 as a license for the masses.

And the rest is history.

> If the contract is non-revocable only when there is consideration is 
> paid, then it would be impossible for the GPL to exist.

And the nail is struck.