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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Mon, 04 Nov 2019 18:20:46 +0000
From:   nipponmail@firemail.cc
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     ruben@mrbrklyn.com, mrbrklyn@panix.com
Subject: Re: Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of
 GCC and the linux kernel)? - He is violating, but you can also rescind the
 license
In-Reply-To: <E1iRgHg-0007e0-Gd@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <b0668893d6fbfeca10a724e1c5846e92@firemail.cc>
 <E1iRgHg-0007e0-Gd@fencepost.gnu.org>
Message-ID: <217b99f456fb178603a9cece07a7d8ee@firemail.cc>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

You do know, correct?, that the Copyright holder can simply rescind the 
license if he is displeased with the way the licensee is behaving - 
since the license is not supported by a contract.

The licensee would then rush to the Federal Court in his district to 
seek a declaratory judgement regarding his rights, and then you're in a 
diversity and federal-question suit.

But that is an option where the licensee paid no consideration for the 
non-exclusive licensee grant (and no: obeying a pre-existing legal duty 
is not sufficient for consideration)

I would like to note that in the Kasner(sp)? decision in the 9th circuit 
the uneducated like to bandy about; the Artistic License was found NOT 
to be a contract but a simple copyright license.

Also in the lower-court (California) Artifex decision the court didn't 
even identify the "GPL" correctly, conflating it with the 
offer-to-do-paying-bushiness preliminary writing (pay us, or accept the 
GPL), but the court then allowed the Copyright holder to choose which 
theory to go ahead with: Contract damages for the price of the 
proprietary license OR pure Federal Copyright damages under the GPL 
(because the GPL is not a contract: it's only a license. If the court 
found it to be a contract it would limit the recovery to contract 
damages under state law: which is WHY in Kasner the violator wanted the 
Artistic license to be deemed a contract: damages of 0 (free))

However, GrSecurity is violating the GPL so you can just sue for 
Copyright damages off the bat (as my other 2 posts quickly explain, I 
haven't repeated the arguments here).