Actually, I'm writing a recommendation that customers stay away from grsecurity because they could become contributory infringers. I have no doubt that it's actionable, and the _lawyers_ I work with aren't nearly in agreement with you.
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote: > Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com): > > > It doesn't, unless you have understanding customers who just don't > > redistribute because they want you to stay in business. But grsecurity > > doesn't work that way, it is alleged. It is alleged that they tell > > customers that if they redistribute, they will no longer be allowed to > > be a customer or get the next version. > > > > IMO that's violating the GPL. > > IMO, terminating a customer relationship and contractual entitlement to > future releases is nothing like a 'restriction on the recipients' > exercise of the rights granted herein' within the meaning of GPLv2 > clause 6, because zero impediment is thereby imposed on licensee's > lawful exercise of licence rights. Commercial support and updates are > nowhere guaranteed by the licence terms. > > You obviously disagree. Judges would get to decide, provided the claim > were ever adjudicated, but I think that outcome's wildly improbable > because plaintiffs aren't dumb enough to bring such cases. > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng >
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
