From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85E1CA9EB5 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE90A20578 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:20:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=firemail.cc header.i=@firemail.cc header.b="zpgn0jd0" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729578AbfKDSUt (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Nov 2019 13:20:49 -0500 Received: from mx1.cock.li ([185.10.68.5]:45545 "EHLO cock.li" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728216AbfKDSUt (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Nov 2019 13:20:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=firemail.cc; s=mail; t=1572891647; bh=qkasHMBgDg6iO9CdM753A+3VB9fjbontl7Ks74KCzHQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=zpgn0jd0OM1+tU9z9WbPzXHm7DY/ZofYqNa6vB9GKdL6Hl5MAw5DcF1Frza0BzAma j9i/22gMKw3+mEb2cz6mc2r0ISF+zmT31PgWqeUWuwTSB+R4wmZv+tvdXQWxHOUGXV Uy4bEDbixSIbih0RQhiYD2ggvY68E5HhxdjIhJXSfX5KRVzNjW4GC8ZTqFcQQafavu 0O8XqUh8LKopkXEd7i5CymLbeICQzl/RZ+f/Uixfui2S0JoQAbMG+R6f2lmk9N3u88 puVO81ZlyO8QYF2WYBIdzjb70u0WBBtbUQvgodlUCUE8Xmox/mgBq6YcOidrJebsfD YeEWYAVtslV+A== 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: References: Message-ID: <217b99f456fb178603a9cece07a7d8ee@firemail.cc> X-Sender: nipponmail@firemail.cc User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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).