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

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:50:45 +0200, Liam Proven wrote:
>Meanwhile, please keep your anonymous ad-hom attacks off support or
>development mailing lists. They are not welcome here.

Hi,

they are less appropiate on users mailing list that aren't for general
discussions, so theoretically the better place would be Ubuntu
devel discuss.
      ^^^^^^^

>On 2017-06-15 15:43, Greg KH wrote:
>> 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.

The above reply says it all.

The discontinued GRSecurity issue isn't new, for example take a look at
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2017-April/043604.html .
New to me is just somebody complaining about a possible legal issue.

IIRC on Ubuntu AppArmor is the default, it's a MAC implementation.

I neither know if AppArmor or something similar could be considered a
replacement for GRSecurity, nor if there is a legal issue with
discontinuing GRSecurity for free, but I didn't heard of a legal issue
before.

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:34:06 +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?

I don't care at all about GRSecurity, so why should I care about a
possible and very unlikely legal issue? I suspect that if there would be
a legal issue, there already would have been many concerns on other
mailing lists. I didn't notice such concerns.

Cross-posting, top posting and the tone of voice are not as good as
providing links to serious concerns.

Regards,
Ralf