Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

[Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>]

> Precisely. And others who wish to exercise rights under the GPL forfeit any
> legal mechanism (whether copyright, DMCA, contract, data privacy laws, or
> whatever theory) to impose "further restrictions" on those who wish to
> similarly use GPL works.

I don't know where you get that paticular idea from. Try sending GPL code
from the USA to Cuba. Seems the US government is using GPL code but
imposing further restrictions...

> have no control. But you cannot invoke copyright -- or any other law -- to
> restrict someone else's exercise of rights granter by the GPL. You get
> copyright, but you give up it all. No "further restrictions", period.

Some rights in laws are absolute. I cannot "give up" my right to be
identified as the author of a work I create in many countries. Its an
absolute.

> When you submit a unit to a GPL project, you place that unit under the GPL.
> That is what the DCoO is trying to say. There cannot be some things that
> some parts of the GPL apply to and some don't. There is no "sort of GPL,
> sort of not" that applies to some parts of some submissions. If something is
> part of or all of a submission made under the GPL, then all of the GPL
> applies to it.

The metadata licensing isn't clear in my view.

I think what you are more likely to get sensible results with is arguing
estoppel ? That was always the intent of that DCO wording. To ensure that
rights or otherwise you couldn't turn around and say "hey you published
my name and I didn't expect that implied by my actions".

However publishing a name and performing data processing on personal data
databases for other purposes is not the same thing at least in some
jurisdictions. In the EU you collect data "for a purpose".

Alan