GRsecurity is preventing others from redistributing source code

[Xen]

> https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/censorship_linux_developer_steals_page_from_randi/

I also want to respond by saying that although everyone is falling over 
the Grsecurity developer, especially with relation to that reddit post 
you cite, and even though his responses might be petty and 
small-hearted, the actual issue in that post started with another 
developer saying:

"yeeeeah." and "try reading the code next time". Which I consider wholly 
inappropriate as a means to talk to people in that sense and if his 
(Bradley Spengler's) responses are petty, they are only so in response 
to something else that was rather much of an insult in the first place. 
A rather "unavailable" insult perhaps, as people ignore it and only 
focus on what he does or has done in return to that.

But this is unrelated to this matter; but may indeed shed a certain 
light on this person that I feel is unwarranted here.

More to the point, if I may:


> I try to teach them that there is more to the law than their license 
> but they won't listen.

Mr. Concernedfossdev, you still need to state or decide what you want to 
be the consequence of your actions.


In much the same way, as the excellent article you cited, makes the 
distinction between the technicalities that define the GPL FAQ (for 
instance) and what copyright law is actually about (substantial 
similarity, intended use, nature of the material, market impact) you 
will need to not just make technical statements and assumptions here (as 
related to how you feel copyright law should be put into effect) by also 
/WHY/ you want that.

See, for instance "market impact" -- there is zero negative impact on 
the market potential and penetration and dominance of the patches on the 
linux kernel itself. If anything, it enhances the demand for it.

The commercial use of GrSecurity may speak in favour of your argument. 
The nature of the material may not; because even though it is a creative 
work, it is also highly functional, and cannot be considered "the 
continuation of a story" in full effect. It could also be considered 
that the patches *could* be applied to any other given kernel as well; 
although this is not the case, there is similarity between this and e.g. 
the nVidia patches. So you need to also make the argument that that 
module is a derivative work. This needs to be less strong, because the 
patches actually do change the core kernel. Yet, the patches clearly 
constitute a substantial creative work by themselves, and do not 
actually incorporate, in that sense, the original product.

Then you must probably answer "why"?

- do you seek to obtain free access to the code or the product?
- are you just protecting people's rights? (Not Convincing).
- are your personal interests being harmed because you have a bigger 
claim to those patches, than the person has to his exclusivity on them?

I don't think that will easily pass.

I think the courts will look at interests being harmed in the first 
place.

In all of the other court examples stated in that article (and also on 
Wikipedia) there was a clear battle of interests, of commercial 
interests, and of financial interests. In this case, it is lacking. I am 
not a lawyer, but I don't think all lawyers are so great either.

I am pretty sure, though, that the courts are going to weigh interests 
against each other, since that is what copyright is about.

And you will have to decisively show that the benefits of gaining access 
to that code (for anyone) outweigh the current commercial interests of 
that company, as well as a business model for which there is no 
alternative (which could be up for debate).

See to my belief courts usually weigh actual people interests, and the 
reason why no one other than the actual parties involved, can go to 
court about it. So you must also explain what will be the consequences 
if your actions succeed.

And this I really would ask of you here as well. Have you considered 
what would actually happen?

- would that person go out of business?
- would he have to stop working on this?
- would "the community" actually claim "ownership" and try to develop it 
of its own? What about the substantial copyright the author has on his 
own work?

I mean, would you actually consider real people interests?

I do believe, perhaps, that if you can show that this person is 
exorbitantly profiting, this will weigh against the statement or 
argument that he has a 'fair use' of the code, but at the same time you 
still need to show that he requires copyright permission to even do this 
work.

As a first party (the linux kernel copyright holders) you must show that 
you are being harmed in your interests in any substantial degree. This 
is clearly up for debate.

And the actual consequence would be that no one can actually develop 
anything proprietary ever, which excludes most if not all business 
models based on the ownership of a certain work, or any right to it. And 
while you would argue that the resulting work must be distributed under 
GPL, it is not clear to anyone (outside of the GPL world at least) how 
this would /NOT/ damage everyone involved.

I would not, if I am fair, any pressure.... I would not mind any 
pressure on this person, in this sense, as a matter of saying, but also 
in a general case, when I read those words of $17.000/yr contracts... I 
would consider that "exploitation" myself. But apparently in law, 
"derivative work" first needs to pass.

But I want to reply shortly to the comment you made to my own post, and 
leave it that now.

Regards.