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

[Brendan || Lyn Perrine]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:17:53 +0000
aconcernedfossdev at airmail.cc wrote:

> 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 
> linux.
> 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 
> > <vladinator at gmail.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 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/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --
> >> ubuntu-users mailing list
> >> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
> >> 
> 
> -- 
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
This statement needs to be false or else it violates the gpl in my mind as it limits the reasons people want to contriubte. 

Telling people there reason for contributing does not exist will not make you many friends either. I personally contribute because it gives me a sense of service in life I do not expect to be recompensed that much provided I can have enough food to survive and an internet connection. 

I personally care about gpl enforcement but am a bit too broke right now to donate money and do not possess the social skills to be in a courtroom nor do I personally have any code in the linux kernel. 



-- 
 Lyn Perrine <walterorlin at gmail.com>