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 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**:
youtube.com/watch?v=CYnhI3wUej8
(A Boat Sails Away 2016 17) )
Quoted 5 lines · On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000, [email protected] 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.
Quoted 9 lines
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
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.
Quoted 24 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 5 lines · On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000, [email protected] 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.Quoted 9 lines
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
Also Brad Spengler has been threatening legal action against an openwall developer back-porting features of Brad's wholly, non-standalone, derivative work.
He also calls GRSecurity an "Original Work", which it is not (see the Anime Subs cases for the court's opinion) (GRSecurity is such a non-standalone derivative work, so the Linux Licensing terms absolutely do apply (it's a patch that snakes through the whole of the Linux Kernel source tree, touching everything like a vine).
Here's a quick rundown:
-------------------------------------
GRSecurity goes full commercial, no more free testing patches, threatens programmer trying to port.
(*1) https://lwn.net/Articles/723169/
(*2) https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/software/general-linux-open-source/948623-grsecurity-kernel-patches-will-no-longer-be-free-to-the-public?page=1
(*3) https://www.embedded-linux.de/18-news/886-grsecurity-nicht-mehr-kostenlos-verfuegbar
(*4) https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/grsecurity_linux_kernel_freeloaders/
GRSecurity removes public testing patch - goes full commercial.
(*5) http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/06/04/24
Quoted 7 lines
"Don't worry about it, there's nothing for a "grateful" user like yourself to download anymore. Boy, if I had more "grateful" users like yourself obsessed with harrassing us on Twitter, Reddit, and IRC so that they can go around and paint themselves as some kind of victim, I wouldn't know what to do with myself.
-Brad"
Brad Spengler prevents a private purchaser from redistributing the sourcecode via contract clauses between him and they: thus willfully frustrating the purpose of the license HE was granted by the linux kernel rightsholders. This is another reason a court may find him in violation of the license grant of the GPL. As we discussed previously. (See: ****)
Also Brad Spengler threatens others with lawsuit in a nearly transparent attempt to get them to stop porting over the work:
Quoted 1 line
" This stops *now* or I'm sending lawyers after you and
(*6) http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/06/03/14
Quoted 8 lines
Guys, this is your *last warning*. This stops *now* or I'm sending lawyers after you and the companies paying you to plagiarize our work and violate our *registered* copyright (which for the record entitles us to punitive damages which now are very easily provable). It's time to get serious about attribution -- what you are doing is completely unacceptable. I'm already in contact with lawyers to prepare for the next time this happens. If any of this plagiarized and misattributed code actually made it into the Linux kernel, you'd all be in a world of pain.
Here Brad Spengler threatens a copyright infringement lawsuit regarding his non-original wholly-derivative work. (An original work stands alone). This while he threatens those paying customers who might redistribute the work (see: **** below).
Note: Copyright licenses (like any license to use the property of another (copyright is freely alienable in the same way real property is)) are freely revocable unless barred by estoppel. The GPL v2 lacks a no-revocation clause thus estoppel would be more difficult to argue (additonally none of the "agreeing parties" have ever met each other).
Note2: GrSecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel, it is non-seperable: it wholly relies on the linux kernel source code to work. Courts in both the US and Germany have reaffirmed that if a work based on another work cannot stand alone it is clearly a derivative work. (See the Anime Subtitles case from a few years ago) (See page 6 of the phoronix discussion at *2 for a review)
Note3:The linux kernel is not under joint copyright, it is simply a collection of derivative work upon derivative work.
A simple solution is for one or many of the rightsholders to the code GRSecurity is derived from/ modifies to rescind Brad Spengler's license to use or modify their code.
Additionally copyright violation claims can be filed as Brad Spengler has reportedly attempted to frustrate the purpose of the agreement that allows him to modify the linux kernel in the first place; placing additional restrictions to prevent redistribution of the sourcecode (a court would not be fooled by such a scheme).
(Addionally there were third parties who contributed to the GRSecurity code base when it was publically distributed.)
Other snippets from (*5) include Mr Spengler's unhappiness with the publication of his scheme and RMS's opinion of it:
Quoted 5 lines
... It has been nearly 4 months now and despite repeated follow-ups, I still haven't received anything back more than an automated reply. Likewise regarding some supposed claims by RMS which were published last year by internet troll mikeeusa -- I have been trying since June 3rd of last year to get any response from him, but have been unable to. So when you ...
RMS' opinion can be seen here:
(*7) https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/06/msg00020.html
Quoted 11 lines
Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code Richard Stallman (May 31 2016 10:27 PM)
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]If I understand right, this is a matter of GPL 2 on the Linux patches. Is that right? If so, I think GRsecurity is violating the GPL on Linux.
Quoted 5 lines
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
(****)
GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute (by threatening them with a non-renewal of a contract to recive this patch to the linux kernel.) (GRsecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel (it is a patch))
People who have dealt with them have attested to this fact:
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/censorship_linux_developer_steals_page_from_
andi
"You will also lose the access to the patches in the form of grsec not renewing the contract. Also they've asked us (a Russian hosting company) for $17000+ a year for access their stable patches. $17k is quite a lot for us. A question about negotiating a lower price was completely ignored. Twice." -- fbt2lurker
And it is suggested to be the case here aswell:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4gxdlh/after_15_years_of_research_grsecuritys_rap_is_here
"Do you work for some company that pays for Grsecurity? If so then would you kindly excersise the rights given to you by GPL and send me a tarball of all the latest patches and releases?" -- lolidaisuki
"sadly (for this case) no, i work in a human rights organization where we get the patches by a friendly and richer 3rd party of the same field. we made the compromise to that 3rd party to not distribute the patches outside and as we deal with some critical situations i cannot afford to compromise that even for the sake of gpl :/
the "dumber" version for unstable patches will make a big problem for several projects, i would keep an eye on them. this situation cannot be hold for a long time" -- disturbio
Quoted 41 lines · On 2017-06-15 15:51, [email protected] 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.
Quoted 24 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 5 lines · On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000, [email protected] 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.Quoted 9 lines
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
Did you not see Liam's reply, or do you just want to add nothing but noise to this list?
Quoted 54 lines · On Jun 15, 2017 10:51, <[email protected]> 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.
Quoted 22 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 6 lines · On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000, [email protected] 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.Quoted 12 lines
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.Quoted 9 lines
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
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailm
an/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Quoted 2 lines · W Stacy Lockwood
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...
Quoted 65 lines · On Jun 15, 2017 10:51, <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 48 lines
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.
Quoted 32 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 8 lines · On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000, [email protected] 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.Quoted 12 lines
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!
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
greg k-h
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
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.
Quoted 77 lines · On 2017-06-15 16:05, J wrote:
Quoted 2 lines · W Stacy Lockwood
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...
Quoted 65 lines · On Jun 15, 2017 10:51, <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 48 lines
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.
Quoted 32 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 8 lines · On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000, [email protected] 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.Quoted 12 lines
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!
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
greg k-h
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
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) )
Quoted 77 lines · On 2017-06-15 16:05, J wrote:
Quoted 2 lines · W Stacy Lockwood
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...
Quoted 65 lines · On Jun 15, 2017 10:51, <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 48 lines
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.
Quoted 32 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 8 lines · On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000, [email protected] 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.Quoted 12 lines
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!
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
greg k-h
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 20170615182504.640de5f0@utnubu
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
From a legal standpoint the pulling of the public patches is significant.
Before then there was a cause of action due to the imposition of an additional term, but since the rights-holders could still access the derivative work it may have been a moot point to them.
Now that additional no-redistribution term imposition DOES affect the rights-holders.
Big development.
Quoted 44 lines · Ralf Mardorf
Quoted 2 lines · Liam Proven
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.
^^^^^^^Quoted 5 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 4 lines
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.
Quoted 2 lines · On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:34:06 +0000, [email protected] 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
Quoted 7 lines · On 6/15/2017 8:34 AM, [email protected] 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.
Why does not one person here care?
Email lists are never* the correct mechanism for the resolution of legal issues. If someone from these email lists is working to address a legal issue you are extremely unlikely to see any evidence of it on an email list.
---
* I am not a lawyer. Do not construe this as legal advice.
Quoted 17 lines
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**:
youtube.com/watch?v=CYnhI3wUej8
(A Boat Sails Away 2016 17) )
If Mr Spengler would like to market a non-re-distributable hardened kernel, he can write his own kernel from scratch. Currently he is marketing a non-redistributable derivative work of the Linux Kernel. He prevents customers of his from redistributing the derivative work by threatening a non-renewal of whatever contract exists between his company and the customers. This scheme has been successful. That is certainly the imposition of an additional term, which the Linux licensing terms forbid, when he imposed that additional term on his clients he violated the licensing terms and has no right to even modify the linux kernel from that point forward.
Quoted 35 lines · Casey Schaufler
Quoted 7 lines · On 6/15/2017 8:34 AM, [email protected] 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.
Why does not one person here care?
Email lists are never* the correct mechanism for the resolution of legal issues. If someone from these email lists is working to address a legal issue you are extremely unlikely to see any evidence of it on an email list.
---
* I am not a lawyer. Do not construe this as legal advice.Quoted 17 lines
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**:
youtube.com/watch?v=CYnhI3wUej8
(A Boat Sails Away 2016 17) )
Whoever this person is, not only is s/he spamming multiple lists here, there are several over lists where Im getting the same emails but from a different address. Clearly not listing to any responses, just a spammer with an agenda.
--
Registered Linux User: #480675
Registered Linux Machine: #408606
Linux since June 2005
I'm listening to your responses, and responding myself.
You call me a spammer.
Which is a libel.
Would you like me to file over it?
Quoted 10 lines · Wade Smart
Whoever this person is, not only is s/he spamming multiple lists here, there are several over lists where Im getting the same emails but from a different address. Clearly not listing to any responses, just a spammer with an agenda.
--
Registered Linux User: #480675
Registered Linux Machine: #408606
Linux since June 2005
Quoted 4 lines · On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 15:34 +0000, [email protected] 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.
Right now there are a few million systems that use grsecurity, and over a billion systems that are not protected by grsecurity functionality.
Removing grsecurity from the community has been an impetus to finally get the grsecurity functionality into the upstream kernel, where it can benefit the billion systems that do not have it today.
Quoted 3 lines
Why does not one person here care?
Just want to forget what holds Libre Software together and go the way of BSD?
What holds Linux together is community. The license is one of many aspects to that community, but far from the only one.
GRSecurity has been outside of the community for years, and their customer restriction "you can redistribute this code, but if you do we will on longer provide you with updates" does not change that.
Having the remaining developers who are interested in hardening work on getting more functionality upstream, now that the grsecurity patches are no longer available to non-customers, is likely a good thing for everybody.
Want to help out? Join us in ##linux-hardening on irc.freenode.net.
kind regards,
Rik van Riel
Signature · 1 line
All rights reversed
Quoted 1 line
their customer restriction "you can redistribute
this code, but if you do we will on longer provide you with updates" does not change that.
That is the imposition of an additional term, a court would not be amused by the programmers claim it's fine because he didn't ink it into the copy of the license he distributed the code with. The court would not be blind to the effect and the intention. The law has dealt with transparent schemes like this for hundreds of years, and within copyright for about a century (but much longer within contract law).
There should be a joint action.
Quoted 39 lines · Rik van Riel
Quoted 4 lines · On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 15:34 +0000, [email protected] 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.
Right now there are a few million systems that use grsecurity, and over a billion systems that are not protected by grsecurity functionality.
Removing grsecurity from the community has been an impetus to finally get the grsecurity functionality into the upstream kernel, where it can benefit the billion systems that do not have it today.
Quoted 3 lines
Why does not one person here care?
Just want to forget what holds Libre Software together and go the way of BSD?What holds Linux together is community. The license is one of many aspects to that community, but far from the only one.
GRSecurity has been outside of the community for years, and their customer restriction "you can redistribute this code, but if you do we will on longer provide you with updates" does not change that.
Having the remaining developers who are interested in hardening work on getting more functionality upstream, now that the grsecurity patches are no longer available to non-customers, is likely a good thing for everybody.
Want to help out? Join us in ##linux-hardening on irc.freenode.net.
kind regards,
Rik van Riel
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
The license under-which the linux kernel is distributed forbids, in it's text, the imposition of additional terms.
GRSecurity has, in-fact, successfully imposed a no-distribution term.
Even if it was a wink and a nod or an implicit threat the courts would not be blind to them. Additional terms can be made verbally or arise out of a course of business between a commercial entity and a client etc.
Additionally there is damage to the linux kernel rightsholders in that they have no access to the derivative work (unlike the RedHat situation where the kernel developers have the derived sourcecode so it's a moot point to them)
Courts deal in facts, not the fantasies of Proud, Resilient, Gritty, Battle Hardened, American White Male Programers (who know everything there is to know about everything, according to themselves (which is why they come up with these schemes and are /sure/ they will work))
It's a fairly clear cut blatant violation. Not really a grey-area at all.
Quoted 34 lines · Rik van Riel
Quoted 14 lines · On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 16:05 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 1 line
their customer restriction "you can redistribute
this code, but if you do we will on longer provide you with updates" does not change that.
That is the imposition of an additional term, a court would not be amused by the programmers claim it's fine because he didn't ink it into
the copy of the license he distributed the code with. The court would
not be blind to the effect and the intention. The law has dealt with transparent schemes like this for hundreds of years, and within copyright for about a century (but much longer within contract law).Quoted 1 line
There should be a joint action.
I think the best action we can take is making grsecurity obsolete, by integrating all their functionality into the upstream kernel.
I don't think testing what a court thinks is a good idea here, because the GPL does not include any obligation to continue providing people with updates to the code.
The GPL may be much better off if that kind of thing continues to be a gray area that makes corporate lawyers nervous, rather than taking the chance that a court rules against the interests of GPL proponents...
Of course, I am not a lawyer, and if you want real lawyer advice you will need a real lawyer.
Hi,
With only my list moderator hat on (so not taking sides, etc):
So far all messages sent to this thread were accepted, including messages sent by non-subscribers. Nothing was censored. However, let's end this thread here. I've just made changes to list setup so that further messages will be held for moderation.
Once this incident is over (maybe it already is, or maybe not), I hope to be able to relax the moderation settings again. (As you can see, they were very relaxed given that a person could join in with a new address and post unmoderated right away.)
Alexander
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Re: Idle curiosity...
I'm not spamming anyone.
I am trying to:
1) Locate rights-holders to the linux kernel.
2) Inform them of very recent developments concerning their copyrighted work.
3) Inform them of their rights.
Many programmers operate under the false notion that the terms of a license can be circumvented by a third party using a second "out of band" communication or "clever" schemes. That as-long as the license document isn't altered, "all is well"; such is incorrect: that second communication is the imposition of an additional term, even if it is not in writing, even if it arises simply during the course of business (wink and a nod).
The courts will look to the effect, the dealings of the parties, their intentions, and not solely at whatever language resides within the four corners of the one page non-integrated document.
Now, I will assume that you do not have a legal background since you view discussions on the topic as some crime or personal affront...
Quoted 10 lines · Ken D'Ambrosio
Why are you being a fuckwad? Instead of spamming the list, why don't you talk to -- oh, I dunno -- the FSF or someone who'd actually be able to listen to and/or address your questions?
Does it feed your ego to troll a whole list, or multiple lists?
I'm guessing yes. And, yes, if it is your design to troll a list to feed your ego, you, sir, are a fuckwad, well and truly.
Good day, sir miscreant.
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CAOdo=Swu_Uz7MH0NNAeO+7m=wZqG1EgHwKA8B0CgQUuxNefLvg@mail.gmail.com
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CAAiDhw1ZqR_ncw7y1UJH=PjRNK6rw6GitNTsSTeontEQ4M8mzg@mail.gmail.com
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CAAiDhw3k821f1-S=W9yrQM1CjPvORmMB2+OYzuifVfWT4e8oYQ@mail.gmail.com
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CAAiDhw3c4EbnWFaXS+KSNrrVoF3uh7jQGZj+_UEurrOxc9Y_NA@mail.gmail.com
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?
Date: 2017-06-15 19:46
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions" <[email protected]>
Keep digging that hole, Mrs Lockwood, I'm sure the court will look fondly on your most resent disparagement of my character.
Quoted 1 line
Bring it!
As you wish.
Quoted 55 lines · W Stacy Lockwood
Hahahaha! Bring it! Useless turd.
--
W. Stacy Lockwood(847) 579-9753
Quoted 26 lines · On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:15 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
The problem will be solved when you're sued for Libel, W. Stacy Lockwood
On 2017-06-15 17:22, W Stacy Lockwood wrote:
Sounds like problem solved to me, then.--
W. Stacy Lockwood(847) 579-9753 [1]
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Jonathan Hudson
<[email protected]> wrote:On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:04:40 -0500, W Stacy Lockwood wrote:
Take this crap to LKML where ALL the kernel developers who matter, are.
"Airmail is an invite-only E-mail server focused toward professionals
and E-mail enthusiasts. To report abuse please E-mail [email protected]."Quoted 7 lines
LKML appear to have already taken appropriate action.
--
ubuntu-users mailing list [email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users [2] [1]Links:
------
[1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users [2]Links:
------
[1] tel:%28847%29%20579-9753
[2] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CAAiDhw3E_bDxGcK_fHJ1xQvA0F3sN9H+Je+x+27w5ueLrwVkfA@mail.gmail.com
I'm just informing you that I am going to be filing a suit against you for
1) Putting my character a negative false light
2) Libel (communication to a third party a derogatory false statement)
Perhaps your employer will indemnify you Mrs Lockwood.
Thus; I will (as you requested) "bring it".
Quoted 19 lines · W Stacy Lockwood
Quoted 5 lines · On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:46 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Keep digging that hole, Mrs Lockwood, I'm sure the court will look fondly on your most resent disparagement of my character.
Quoted 1 line
Bring it!
As you wish.
Seriously, shut up. Now.
Your email is no longer welcome in my inbox, and will be filtered. When people talk about bad actors in the Linux community, they're talking about people like you. Get some fucking help, you clearly need it.
--
W. Stacy Lockwood