[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:51:02 +0000
From: aconcernedfossdev@...mail.cc
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: ubuntu-users@...ts.ubuntu.com, ubuntu-devel-discuss@...ts.ubuntu.com,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of
GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the
Linux Kernel?
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@...mail.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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
