Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:17:53 +0000
To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions"
Cc:,,, Greg KH <>
Subject: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of
 GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the
 Linux Kernel?

Oh exaulted one, I am so sorry to have wasted your inbox space.
You see we all live for you, exalted aryan queen!

Some of us care about the legal aspects of "copyleft".
Without enforcement there is no reason for anyone to contribute to 
There is a simple trade: we trade our labor for your labor.

On 2017-06-15 16:05, J wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, W Stacy Lockwood 
> <> wrote:
>> Did you not see Liam's reply, or do you just want to add nothing but 
>> noise
>> to this list?
> Given the repeated spamming the list, the cross posting, and replying
> on this list to response external to this list (oh the joys of
> crossposting), can we just chuck this account into a moderation bin
> and let him/her rant into a bit bucket?
> I'm on both the Ubuntu lists, so I'm getting these double... yes, I
> can filter this myself, but that doesn't help the larger group...
>> On Jun 15, 2017 10:51, <> wrote:
>>> It's an obvious blatant violation. He is not allowed to add 
>>> additional
>>> terms, but being a "clever" programmer it seems that he has decided 
>>> that
>>> because the additional term that he (and seemingly PaxTeam) has 
>>> imposed is
>>> not written within the four corners of license grant document but 
>>> instead is
>>> communicated in some other way that """""doesn't make it an 
>>> additional
>>> term""""" and he has """"cleverly circumvented the linux copyright
>>> terms"""", which obviously is not the case but other random 
>>> programmers will
>>> argue and swear it's fine till hell freezes over and get very angry 
>>> when
>>> someone with a legal background informs them otherwise.
>>> I think many people are not aware of the violation because it's only 
>>> been
>>> a month since GRSecurity pulled the sourcecode: it was almost a moot 
>>> point
>>> before then with no real damage. Such is no-longer the case.
>>> On 2017-06-15 15:43, Greg KH wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000, 
>>>> 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.
>>>> If you feel that what they are doing is somehow violating your 
>>>> copyright
>>>> on the Linux kernel, then you have the right to take legal action if 
>>>> you
>>>> so desire.  To tell others what to do, however, is not something 
>>>> that
>>>> usually gets you very far in the world.
>>>> Best of luck!
>>>> greg k-h
>>> --
>>> ubuntu-users mailing list
>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> --
>> ubuntu-users mailing list
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:

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.