[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7e150e42ab1fc4f821b60556dc62280d@airmail.cc>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:01:43 +0000
From: aconcernedfossdev@...mail.cc
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: ubuntu-users@...ts.ubuntu.com, ubuntu-devel-discuss@...ts.ubuntu.com,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of
GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the
Linux Kernel?
If Mr Spengler would like to market a non-re-distributable hardened
kernel, he can write his own kernel from scratch. Currently he is
marketing a non-redistributable derivative work of the Linux Kernel. He
prevents customers of his from redistributing the derivative work by
threatening a non-renewal of whatever contract exists between his
company and the customers. This scheme has been successful. That is
certainly the imposition of an additional term, which the Linux
licensing terms forbid, when he imposed that additional term on his
clients he violated the licensing terms and has no right to even modify
the linux kernel from that point forward.
On 2017-06-15 15:53, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 6/15/2017 8:34 AM, aconcernedfossdev@...mail.cc wrote:
>> Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly
>> violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?
>> He is also violating the license grant, Courts would not be fooled by
>> his scheme to prevent redistribution.
>>
>> The license grant the Linux Kernel is distributed under disallows the
>> imposition of additional terms. The making of an understanding that
>> the derivative work must not be redistributed (lest there be
>> retaliation) is the imposition of an additional term. The
>> communication of this threat is the moment that GRSecurity violates
>> the license grant. Thence-forth modification, making of derivative
>> works, and distribution of such is a violation of the Copyright
>> statute. The concoction of the transparent scheme shows that it is a
>> willful violation, one taken in full knowledge by GRSecurity of the
>> intention of the original grantor.
>>
>>
>> Why does not one person here care?
>
> Email lists are never* the correct mechanism for the resolution
> of legal issues. If someone from these email lists is working
> to address a legal issue you are extremely unlikely to see any
> evidence of it on an email list.
>
>
> ---
> * I am not a lawyer. Do not construe this as legal advice.
>
>> Just want to forget what holds Libre Software together and go the way
>> of BSD?
>>
>>
>> (Note: last month the GRSecurity Team removed the public testing
>> patch,
>> they prevent the distribution of the patch by paying customers by a
>> threat of no further business: they have concocted a transparent
>> scheme
>> to make sure the intention of the Linux rights-holders (thousands of
>> entities) are defeated) (This is unlike RedHat who do distribute their
>> patches in the form the rights-holders prefer: source code, RedHat
>> does
>> not attempt to stymie the redistribution of their derivative works,
>> GRSecurity does.).
>>
>> ------
>> ( This song is about GRSecurity's violation of Linus et al's
>> copyright**:
>> youtube.com/watch?v=CYnhI3wUej8
>> (A Boat Sails Away 2016 17) )
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
