From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A99DC43143 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 05:18:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37AE020878 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 05:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=firemail.cc header.i=@firemail.cc header.b="glG5CZrA" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 37AE020878 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=firemail.cc Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726495AbeJBL7a (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2018 07:59:30 -0400 Received: from cock.li ([185.100.85.212]:45664 "EHLO cock.li" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726304AbeJBL7a (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2018 07:59:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=firemail.cc; s=mail; t=1538457485; bh=1IZ22LOhaC7GC3BO/Yt1gcHHNp7OcGlC0iyMINsIw8U=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:From; b=glG5CZrAOKq+VZVvnMBvQiKMiAE2SDMcs3nzASB2VEkiNlf4BmwpvXmchY61KJxU4 cBzcvyjjkmm2gZHD2xf+qwOXBSMWoqj0Yuxz/dbJDFmmL3EG+RP0gXtB+szg23V5DD PXdQzd2oUHkF1Rx+zQhAHtc1wJLhvQJYLkRaQ51q+Zv3DgoVwqvqTXi3sJwDq2F2jI YZFJozR+0vEIgTsmZHvRu1qkcw8AkmjIjmdY1d4eFzU5k0j73sQWDN1NizYxM48v9A syhHM0pShpedEw3R9G79HLNzoPdoiM+jErNSXiXPPK9l5XkFWztPmUQibpMHmP+xe1 a6lPYf6ZBfEWA== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 05:18:05 +0000 From: clarityabovecompulsion@firemail.cc To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: scott.ferguson.debian.user@gmail.com, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, debian-vote@lists.debian.org, debian-project@lists.debian.org, pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org, yaro@marupa.net, cbannister@slingshot.co.nz, andreimpopescu@gmail.com, ghaverla@materialisations.com, debian-mirrors@lists.debian.org, debian-security@lists.debian.org Subject: SFConservancy misleads in "update" explaining GPLv2. Message-ID: <0443df8ab0d3d8f21ebf4c7d728a9fec@firemail.cc> X-Sender: clarityabovecompulsion@firemail.cc User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Section 4 is not operative against the grantor of the license, and makes no claim to be so. It is speaking only of licensees and what might be described as sub-licensees. Section 0 confirms that "You" refers to licensees. Section 4 simply states that if a licensee loses his license, that does not cause the sub-licensee to lose his license in-turn. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- The software freedom conservancy has tendered its response: http://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/ http://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4 "" "The GPLv2 have several provisions that, when taken together, can be construed as an irrevocable license from each contributor. " "" It cites: " That license granted to downstream is irrevocable, again provided that the downstream user complies with the license terms: "[P]arties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance" (GPLv2ยง4). " However this is disingenuous The full text of section 4 is as follows: "" 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. "" The "You" in section 4 is speaking of the licensee regarding sub-licensees, it is not speaking to the licensor/copyright-holder. IE: if the licensee loses his license, through operation of the automatic-revocation provisions, the sub-licensees do not also lose their licenses. IE: The language is disclaiming a chain topography for license distribution, and instead substituting a hub-and-spoke topography (all licenses originating from the copyright holder, not the previous-in-line) GPLv3 added a no-rescission clause for a reason: the reason being to attempt to create an estoppel defense for the licensees against the licensor. You will notice that Eben Moglen never speaks on these issues. (He preumably is aware of the weaknesses vis a vis the US copyright regime.) Section 6 further clarifies the hub-and-spoke model: "" 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. "" The memorandum posted then goes on to a discussion of estoppel, detrimental reliance, etc; noting that users may have relied on the software and their licenses may be estopped from being revoked from said users since doing so might cause them unanticipated loss. This is speaking of already published, existent, versions of the program used by end users. The memorandum seems to ignore what happens to "upstream" once said project receives a revocation notice. Thought it may be possible that users of a published piece of software may have defenses to license revocation, the same is not true regarding the rescinded property vis-a-vis future prospective versions of the software nor of future prospective licensees of said software. That is: once the grant to use the code in question is rescinded, future versions of the software may not use that code. Current users of the software may be-able to raise an estoppel / detrimental reliance defense regarding the current published software, however the programmers working on the next version of said software cannot continue to use the property in future versions of the software (such would be a copyright violation once the gratuitous license is rescinded by the grantor). Additionally, prospective-licensees, once the grant was rescinded and such was published, would have no same-such estoppel defense (not being user-licensees at the time of revocation). (Ignoring this eventuality in the published memorandum, is, of-course, by design.) (Now, to note: the free-software movement is focused on the freedom of the user, not the progenitors of the software, so one could certainly say that ignoring some developer-focused analysis is consistent with their prerogative...) --------------------------------- --------------------------------- In reference to the SFConservancy's argument which disingenuously suggests that a clause operative only against licensees is operative against the grantor: Gnu GPL version 2, section 0: "Each licensee is addressed as "you". " The "you" is not referring to the licensor (copyright owner). It is referring to the licensees and then future sub-licensees/additional-licensees receiving the work from said previous licensee. It is independently clear from the context of the clauses if you read them in full. ...and then section 0 comes around and makes it _explicit_ that "you" refers to the licensee. (if you had any doubt) Additionally, you should know that the copyright owner is not bound by the gratuitous license he proffers to potential licensees regarding his property. The licensees are bound to his terms: he is the owner. They take at his benefaction.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
--------------------------------- --------------------------------- Licenses and revocability, in a paragraph or less. As has been stated in easily accessible terms elsewhere: "Most courts hold that simple, non-exclusive licenses with unspecified durations that are silent on revocability are revocable at will. This means that the licensor may terminate the license at any time, with or without cause." + Version 2 of the GPL specifies no duration, nor does it declare that it is non-revocable by the grantor. (Also note: A perpetual license may violate the rule against perpetuities in various jurisdictions where it is applied not only to real property but additionally to personal property (and the like), which is why the GPL-3's term of duration is set as the duration of copyright on the program (and not "forever")) +[https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2013/02/the-terms-revocable-and-irrevocable-in-license-agreements-tips-and-pitfalls] --------------------------------- --------------------------------- The paramount reason Eben Moglen has the FSF accepting contributions only with copyright assignment is because the grantor of a license that is a gratuity (no consideration (read: usually money) given) can remove the permission regarding the use of his property at his pleasure. (Regardless of the story that was promulgated for the public ("only to have standing to sue under copyright, since the GPL is a bare license and does not give rise to contract damages") - which was and is a half-truth only (Yes: you do need to own the rights to a work to sue under copyright, Yes the GPL is a bare license, No: that's not the whole reason why one would want the author to no-longer hold the copyright)) --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Stallman is wrong. Gratuitous licenses are revocable. The grantor was payed no consideration for his code, and he tendered no utterance which would induce a reasonable licensee* to rely on the existence of a continuance of permission for any length of time (Version 2 of the GPL bears neither a no-rescission clause, nor does it even bear a clause giving a period to it's effect) (Version 3 of the GPL has both of these added (no-rescission by grantor, period of license is the term of copyright on the program), Linux is under version 2, the license the grantors granted regarding their property is version 2. Linus even publicly rejected GPLv3 with much grandstanding) *(Note: Linux Licensees seem to not even bother reading the one page grant. This is their level of reasonableness)