Messages in this thread | | | From | Martin Schroeder <> | Date | Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:41:03 +0200 | 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@googlemail.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@gmail.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
| |