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

[aconcernedfossdev at airmail.cc]

Nice vally-girl yawn.

Because you are not interested in legal matters vis a vis GRSecurity, no 
one should be and the discussion should be censored

You're a real piece of work, you know.
A real piece of work.

So I ask the question again: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of 
GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to 
the Linux Kernel?

Why does no one care that Brad Spengler (seemingly aswell as PaxTeam) of 
GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to 
the Linux Kernel?

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.


Why does not one person here care?
Just want to forget what holds Libre Software together and go the way of 
BSD?


(Note: last month the GRSecurity Team removed the public testing patch,
they prevent the distribution of the patch by paying customers by a
threat of no further business: they have concocted a transparent scheme
to make sure the intention of the Linux rights-holders (thousands of
entities) are defeated) (This is unlike RedHat who do distribute their
patches in the form the rights-holders prefer: source code, RedHat does
not attempt to stymie the redistribution of their derivative works,
GRSecurity does.).

------
( This song is about GRSecurity's violation of Linus et al's 
copyright**:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYnhI3wUej8
(A Boat Sails Away 2016 17) )

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
>>