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

[W Stacy Lockwood]

Did you not see Liam's reply, or do you just want to add nothing but noise
to this list?

On Jun 15, 2017 10:51, <aconcernedfossdev at airmail.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 at airmail.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 at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailm
> an/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20170615/990a111a/attachment.html>