
Linux code contributions cannot be rescinded: Stallman - kiyanwang
https://www.itwire.com/open-source/84683-linux-code-contributions-cannot-be-rescinded-stallman.html
======
HissingMachine
As I have become to understand this problem from dozens of articles that have
been written about it.

Yes, you can't remove code from a previous release, that is even technically
impossible with the mix of different releases being in production and forks
and derived works. But what you can do is remove your code from the source,
the living document from which these releases are produced, practically
removing your contribution from subsequent releases. This has to be possible
since it's technically probable that old code is removed from source by the
author or replaced by someone else, and this happens all the time during
development.

But what really makes me sad, is that every article written lately has focused
on developer reaction and whether it is right or wrong. One author even pulled
a quote from Ian Malcolm's character from Jurassic Park, lamenting that we are
preoccupied with if it is possible to do so, not if we should do so. But
failing to critically scrutinize the source of the problem, mainly the CoC and
the peddlers of this document. It's not a question if the Kernel community
could or could not adopt it, but ask should it be adopted at all.

It seems like the adoption of the new CoC is a foregone conclusion not up for
debate, and now we are forced to argue in circles over the impact of this
document since all talk regarding the adoption of CoC is forbidden.

------
ggm
People often want to be reductionist about things like this and assume there
is some mandatory legal symmetry to things but that's not how it works. Things
cannot be rescinded but they can be dropped or removed. So, no, they are not
implicitly always in Linux as shipped. And they might not even be in a git
repo forever.

------
zm232s1
The software freedom conservancy has tendered its response:
[http://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocabili...](http://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/)
[http://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-
guidech8.html#x1...](http://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-
guidech8.html#x11-540007.4)

"" "The GPLv2 have several provisions that, when taken together, can be
construed as an irrevocable license from each contributor. " ""

It cites:

    
    
              " That license granted to downstream is irrevocable, again provided that the downstream user complies with the license terms: "[P]arties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance" (GPLv2§4). "
    

However this is disingenuous

The full text of section 4 is as follows:

"" 4\. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except
as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy,
modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically
terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received
copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses
terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. ""

The "You" in section 4 is speaking of the licensee regarding sub-licensees, it
is not speaking to the licensor/copyright-holder.

IE: if the licensee loses his license, through operation of the automatic-
revocation provisions, the sub-licensees do not also lose their licenses.

IE: The language is disclaiming a chain topography for license distribution,
and instead substituting a hub-and-spoke topography (all licenses originating
from the copyright holder, not the previous-in-line)

GPLv3 added a no-rescission clause for a reason: the reason being to attempt
to create an estoppel defense for the licensees against the licensor. You will
notice that Eben Moglen never speaks on these issues. (He preumably is aware
of the weaknesses vis a vis the US copyright regime.)

Section 6 further clarifies the hub-and-spoke model: "" 6\. Each time you
redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient
automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy,
distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You
may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the
rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by
third parties to this License. ""

The memorandum posted then goes on to a discussion of estoppel, detrimental
reliance, etc; noting that users may have relied on the software and their
licenses may be estopped from being revoked from said users since doing so
might cause them unanticipated loss. This is speaking of already published,
existent, versions of the program used by end users.

The memorandum seems to ignore what happens to "upstream" once said project
receives a revocation notice. Thought it may be possible that users of a
published piece of software may have defenses to license revocation, the same
is not true regarding the rescinded property vis-a-vis future prospective
versions of the software nor of future prospective licensees of said software.

That is: once the grant to use the code in question is rescinded, future
versions of the software may not use that code. Current users of the software
may be-able to raise an estoppel / detrimental reliance defense regarding the
current published software, however the programmers working on the next
version of said software cannot continue to use the property in future
versions of the software (such would be a copyright violation once the
gratuitous license is rescinded by the grantor).

Additionally, prospective-licensees, once the grant was rescinded and such was
published, would have no same-such estoppel defense (not being user-licensees
at the time of revocation).

(Ignoring this eventuality in the published memorandum, is, of-course, by
design.) (Now, to note: the free-software movement is focused on the freedom
of the user, not the progenitors of the software, so one could certainly say
that ignoring some developer-focused analysis is consistent with their
prerogative...)

\-------------------- \--------------------

Gnu GPL version 2, section 0: "Each licensee is addressed as "you". "

The "you" is not referring to the licensor (copyright owner). It is referring
to the licensees and then future sub-licensees/additional-licensees receiving
the work from said previous licensee.

It is independently clear from the context of the clauses if you read them in
full.

...and then section 0 comes around and makes it _explicit_ that "you" refers
to the licensee. (if you had any doubt)

Additionally, you should know that the copyright owner is not bound by the
gratuitous license he proffers to potential licensees regarding his property.
The licensees are bound to his terms: he is the owner. They take at his
benefaction.

<blockquote> GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING,
DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

    
    
      0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains

a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the
terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such
program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or
any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the
Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or
translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included
without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as
"you". </blockquote>

------
zm232s1
Spurned linux contributors SHOULD revoke the license grant they have given
regarding their code. In the case of the linux kernel; These are typically
gratuities and can be rescinded at the will of the grantor.

> ecree wrote: > That is presuming my consent against me, and consent is very
> important to me.

>mjg59 (Matthew Garrett) wrote: >It's not presuming your consent at all, it's
adding a condition to your future participation. If you find that condition
unacceptable then you should let your employers know - they can either make a
case to the Linux Foundation or move you to another role. Remember that
participation in the kernel is a privilege, not a right, and our involvement
as always been at the whims of Linus. I'm well aware of how much it sucks when
he makes decisions I don't like without consulting with the rest of the
community, and I'm also aware that there's nothing I can do about it.

Consent is important, keeping the rights-holders happy is important. A
gratuitous license is revocable at the will of the grantor. If ecree holds
copyright to his contributions, and he sought no consideration (usually money)
from the licensee, he can revoke the license grant at any time under US
property law.

Contributors to the linux code base do not typically sign over their
copyrights to linux or a foundation, instead retaining the copyright
themselves. Contributors (here specifically: copyright holders) to the linux
code base do not typically take money from those to whom they license their
work.

Do the math. Property 101. There is a reason Moglen required assignments to
the FSF for gnu related work, and the public story does not give the whole
truth regarding intent. (estopple won't save you, nor will it save would-have-
been potential future licensees)

