Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 23 Sep 2018 16:50:50 +0200
From:   Christoph Conrads <contact@christoph-conrads.name>
To:     Edward Cree <ec429@cantab.net>
Cc:     unconditionedwitness@redchan.it,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.
Message-Id: <20180923165050.56674786772aaa0985f5ba53@christoph-conrads.name>
In-Reply-To: <a9db544f-db9d-d6c4-67d8-43db2eb591fc@cantab.net>
References: <e223b198-af0e-123d-49bf-fad7e0f9126e@cantab.net>
        <20180919081812.020f19e3@lwn.net>
        <72dadc76-44fe-ecb5-e142-0a9129082c93@cantab.net>
        <CAOesGMjgo5zwKvsbi8txGQbvFHR2N7xKphzhTSGOrruN3+RC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
        <20180920041846.GA4418@1wt.eu>
        <206423b0a199c1f12e61364d6e687e09@redchan.it>
        <a9db544f-db9d-d6c4-67d8-43db2eb591fc@cantab.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Dear Edward,

> I know others have already said it, but:
> This is legally nonsense.  The only way I can revoke someone's rights to
>  my code under the GPL is if they violate the terms of the GPL.

this aspect of FOSS licenses has -- to the best of my knowledge --
never been tested in court. Actually, the Free Software Foundation felt
compelled to clarify this point in GPLv3 and there is a thread on
StackOverflow acknowledging the possibility of revoking a license [1].
Finally, revoking the license may very well be possible in some
jurisdictions but not all of them, e.g., Australia [2]. There are 195
independent states in this world and I do not think you can make such a
broad claim if it has never been legally contested before.

By the way your e-mail is violating the code of coduct.

> This is legally nonsense.

You are not empathic towards others and respectful of differing
viewpoints. 

> In short, "unconditionedwitness", please shut up.  You're not helping.

The comment is derogatory if not downright offensive.

[1]
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/832/is-a-copyright-license-by-default-revocable-or-irrevocable
[2]
https://web.archive.org/web/20091024034824/http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html

Sincerely
Christoph Conrads

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 23:57:15 +0100
Edward Cree <ec429@cantab.net> wrote:

> On 20/09/18 10:27, unconditionedwitness@redchan.it wrote:
> > Contributors can, at any time, rescind the license grant regarding their
> > property via written notice to those whom they are rescinding the grant
> > from (regarding their property (code)).
> 
> I know others have already said it, but:
> This is legally nonsense.  The only way I can revoke someone's rights to
>  my code under the GPL is if they violate the terms of the GPL.  If I
>  were to do so otherwise, then _I_ would be in violation for having
>  distributed derived works of the kernel without a GPL, not to mention
>  the obvious reliance/estoppel problems.
> 
> Moreover, even if I _could_ revoke the license, I wouldn't want to do
>  so; it would be ridiculously petty in itself and the precedent it would
>  set would be destructive to the entire open-source community, about
>  which I care deeply.  It is _because_ Linux and other open-source
>  projects are so important to humanity that I spoke up about what I
>  perceive as a threat to it.
> 
> In short, "unconditionedwitness", please shut up.  You're not helping.