Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 02 Jan 2021 07:36:11 +0000 | From | nipponmail@firemail ... | Subject | Grsecurity GPL Violations: Linus/FSF/SFConservancy won't defend. Claw back your copyrights. BSD-in-Practice was not the deal. |
| |
Silence is consent.
> Are there FOSS developers making decent money via Patreon, GoFundMe, > whatever?
Yes, Grsecurity is making good money. They simply added a no-redistribution agreement to their patch of the Linux Kernel. > ( > https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ > )
The FSF, Software Freedom Conservancy, and the Corporate Linux Kernel Developers all agree that this is fine (silence is consent).
> https://twitter.com/spendergrsec/status/1293155787859206146 > Importantly, neither the FSF nor the SFC, nor in fact any actual lawyer > agrees with this bizarre claim from an anonymous troll. More info about > the source of the claim can be found here: > https://grsecurity.net/setting_the_record_straight_on_oss_v_perens_part1 > Thanks for doing your part, "Dr" to continue the troll's harrassment
>> LOL. " #GRSecurity violates both the Linux kernel's copyright and the >> #GCC #copyright by forbidding redistribution of the patches (in their >> Access Agreement): which are non-seperable derivative works...
Contributors should blanket-revoke their contributions from all free-takers since they didn't agree to BSD-in-Practice. They should also claw-back any transferred copyrights from the FSF using the 30 year clawback provision in the US Copyright Act. Design of how a program works is a copyrightable aspect (Ex: How RMS designed GCC 30 years ago or so etc)
Had to repost this because the linux admins deleted the email:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/28/2518 > The message you requested cannot be found. > The message you requested cannot be found. The message with the url > http://feisty.lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/28/2518 does not exist in the > database.
Grsecurity GPL Violations: Bring a CASE act claim every time GrSecurity releases a new infringing work?
(GRSecurity blatantly violates the clause in the Linux kernel and GCC copyright licenses regarding adding addtional terms between the licensee of the kernel / gcc and furthur down-the-line licensees, regarding derivative works) (The linux kernel has 1000s of copyright holders) (All who shake at the knees at the thought of initiating a federal Copyright lawsuit)
| |