RE: 463 kernel developers missing!

["David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>]

> > 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...

I'm not sure how you think this is relevent. I could go to the effort of
explaining in detail why it's irrelevent, but I can't imagine you intended
this comment as a genuine response in good faith.

For one thing, even if this was a violation of the GPL, there would be no
recourse. The only conceivable recourse would be a suit by an author for
copyright infringement. The government has sovereign immunity against such a
claim. The government is immune because it has sovereign immunity. Jon is
immune because the GPL grants him the right he is exercising. (Of course, it
can't make him immune from any laws he violates, but my argument is that
because he has consent he isn't violating any laws.)

> > 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.

Yes, but you can give up your right to pursue that right. And certainly some
terms of the GPL might be unenforceable in some jurisdictions. But the GPL
says Jon can do what he's doing, and it means what he says. As I said, I
don't know the data privacy laws in your jurisdiction, but I do know the GPL
made you give up your right to use them to impose restrictions on Jon's
imposition of his GPL rights.

You may or may not be able to stop some operation of law from happening. You
are not responsible for things outside your control. And some jurisdictions
may find some GPL terms unconscionable when used in this way.

> > 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.

Perhaps you can invent some other meaning it might have and then claim it's
unclear because it can mean that. But I don't think it matters. The GPL is
really what matters here, at least in my opinion. The GPL is clearly all of
apiece -- it either applies to something or it doesn't. And if you want to
argue that people must parse GPL submissions to figure out what's really
covered by the GPL and what's not, you can certainly argue that. I find that
argument fairly unconvincing.

> 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".

GPL submissions are for the purposes specified in the GPL -- so that other
people may freely redistribute, copy, and modify them. You forfeit the right
to claim you made GPL submissions "for a purpose" as the GPL specifically
requires you to consent to their use for any purpose (save those the GPL
itself prohibits, of course).

DS