@mattskala @lain My point is just that "GPL ... is intended to include ... *all* consent necessary" means nothing if the consent cannot legally be given.
@ddipaola @jordyd I was told by the car shop that I used my brakes too little, which was allowing rust to build up and cause an uneven braking surface.
I should do a couple of hard brakes at high speed to wear down some of the rust, so that they would brake more evenly. I did, and the brakes did indeed improve.
@mattskala @lain The license operates under the framework set by law. It's just that simple. Even as narrowly as within copyright itself, under European legal tradition with author's moral rights, you can't license the full and complete rights to a work.
I haven't heard it applied to software, but a filmmaker in Sweden won a court case, all the way up to the Swedish Supreme Court, arguing that his rights had been infringed, even though his film had been licensed fair and square through the usual channels, because the film was shown interrupted by a commercial break, which infringed on the integrity of the work.
@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.
@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.