Conversation

Notices

1. clacke (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 23-May-2018 12:00:21 EDT clacke
   @mattskala @lain Consent or other valid reasons for storing data is the easy part. Do I have your enthusiastic consent to store all the things I am already storing about you for reasons of providing this service, "Oh god yes" or "Hell no"?
   
   Erasure and the other bits (whatever they are!) are the hard parts.
   
   Just witness GitLab trying to negotiate away the #GDPR rights that cannot be negotiated away.
   
   https://social.coop/@gdorn/100067771906542790
   1. Oneesan succubus (lain@pleroma.soykaf.com)'s status on Wednesday, 23-May-2018 12:27:01 EDT Oneesan succubus

      in reply to
      @clacke @mattskala easy, just host free software only, now you got a license to show that stuff forever.
      1. clacke (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 23-May-2018 14:01:43 EDT clacke

         in reply to
         @lain @mattskala The license is about copyright, not GDPR.
         
         If I take a picture of a person, I own the copyright to that picture and from a copyright perspective I can do what I want with it. But other laws still apply, which may prevent me from publishing the picture in general or in certain contexts.
         1. Matthew Skala (mattskala@mstdn.io)'s status on Wednesday, 23-May-2018 14:05:30 EDT Matthew Skala

            in reply to

            @clacke @lain I think that the GPL in its latest version, at least, is intended to include/require an irrevocable grant of *all* consent necessary to allow distribution. If I release something under GPL, I'm supposed to be promising, granting, consenting, licensing, and everything else necessary to make sure that you not only can distribute it now, but that you always can. For me to then say you can't distribute it b/c "right to be forgotten," is against the spirit for sure, maybe the letter.

      2. Matthew Skala (mattskala@mstdn.io)'s status on Wednesday, 23-May-2018 12:28:21 EDT Matthew Skala

         in reply to

         @lain @clacke But does the license to the *software* cover the *version control history*? That's the same question that came up in the opposite direction when Mastodon was sore about somebody forking the code base without preserving the git commits...