[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re: Fwd: Re: [DNG] GPL version 2 is a bare license. Recind. (Regarding (future) linux Code of Conduct Bannings).

> 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

Reply to: