Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:32:29 +0100 | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: 463 kernel developers missing! |
| |
> Precisely. And others who wish to exercise rights under the GPL forfeit any > legal mechanism (whether copyright, DMCA, contract, data privacy laws, or > whatever theory) to impose "further restrictions" on those who wish to > similarly use GPL works.
I don't know where you get that paticular idea from. Try sending GPL code from the USA to Cuba. Seems the US government is using GPL code but imposing further restrictions...
> have no control. But you cannot invoke copyright -- or any other law -- to > restrict someone else's exercise of rights granter by the GPL. You get > copyright, but you give up it all. No "further restrictions", period.
Some rights in laws are absolute. I cannot "give up" my right to be identified as the author of a work I create in many countries. Its an absolute.
> When you submit a unit to a GPL project, you place that unit under the GPL. > That is what the DCoO is trying to say. There cannot be some things that > some parts of the GPL apply to and some don't. There is no "sort of GPL, > sort of not" that applies to some parts of some submissions. If something is > part of or all of a submission made under the GPL, then all of the GPL > applies to it.
The metadata licensing isn't clear in my view.
I think what you are more likely to get sensible results with is arguing estoppel ? That was always the intent of that DCO wording. To ensure that rights or otherwise you couldn't turn around and say "hey you published my name and I didn't expect that implied by my actions".
However publishing a name and performing data processing on personal data databases for other purposes is not the same thing at least in some jurisdictions. In the EU you collect data "for a purpose".
Alan
| |