kernel-hardening - Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

server OS

Message-ID: <CAFB6qZu6xVuYJii=61Fam8rWOHtp_ECXdAGJushj6pZuP8GufA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:05:42 -0400
From: J <dreadpiratejeff@...il.com>
To: stacy@...pylog.com, 
	"Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users@...ts.ubuntu.com>
Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@...ts.ubuntu.com, 
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, 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?

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, W Stacy Lockwood <vladinator@...il.com> 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, <aconcernedfossdev@...mail.cc> 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, 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>> ubuntu-users@...ts.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users@...ts.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>