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]

> You made this discussion on @discuss last December.
Incorrect.

This is a different discussion where there has been a significant 
development THIS MONTH.
How could the developments of THIS MONTH be made last December.
Does someone have a time machine, Xen?

(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.).

Previously to THIS MONTH there was a public source patch distributed, so
rights-holders may have felt the issue moot.

Now that has changed.

Very simple, but programmers don't seem to grasp such subtleties.

No, this is NOT the same discussion.

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.


On 2017-06-15 17:49, Xen wrote:
> aconcernedfossdev at airmail.cc schreef op 15-06-2017 17:34:
>> Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly
>> violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?
> 
> You made this discussion on @discuss last December.
> 
> You were of the opinion that any copyright violation *MUST* be 
> prosecuted.
> 
> I failed back then to see the need to do so. Why should you care if
> you are not effected?
> 
> The answer to your question is simply that people are not hurt by it,
> and if they were I think you could count on them to see the relevance
> themselves. Without convincing.
> 
> Even in criminal prosecution there is something called "prosecutorial
> discretion". And if no one is hurt, why should they care.
> 
> This thought that some kind of natural law mandates action is folly.
> It only happens if people care.
> 
> You ask why people don't care. Probably because they have better things 
> to do.
> 
> Some of the things you have cited indicate a counter-productive
> 'response' from this Spengler fellow, in the sense that the more you
> nag, the more he will do the opposite of what you want, as people
> usually do.
> 
> If someone tells me to eat pizza every Sunday, I am sure as hell not
> going to eat pizza on a Sunday. And I might even avoid doing it on
> purpose just to mess with you.
> 
> I told you back then that your approach treated this guy as an enemy,
> and you see now that he did as I told you he would, you didn't come
> closer to an agreement, but you widened the gap.
> 
> Your efforts have an effect opposite to what you intend.
> 
> You want to achieve victory by force. Well, good luck.