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

[Nick Boyce]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:45:13 +0900
Joel Rees  wrote:

> Who can compete when Intel refuses to pay 
> the price of making CPUs that are unsafe at 
> progressively higher speeds?

Er .. s/unsafe/safe/ ???

But basically +1 to everything (else) you wrote.

Nick
-- 
Never FDISK after midnight

Re: If no enforcement takes place between two parties (GPL) Was: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel

[Bruce Perens]

OK, I apologize to all who were involved in this conversation. I will block
further emails from "aconcernedfossdev" and no longer encourage him.

Bruce


On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:24 PM,  wrote:

> These are simply counterpoints the defense would likely contend and one
> should be prepared for as they could be entertained by a court.
>
> One can certainly contend that to remain silent when any reasonable person
> would speak if they were in opposition, indicates assent. The court may
> reject that argument in this case or not.
>
> Well, you are confusing civil and criminal law.
>>
>
> I am not.
> I gave that example as a supporting point to the discussion on civil law
> and equity that is almost farcical extreme example (that courts will, for
> example, hold you in contempt for not paying a settlement while you are
> imprisoned and have no way of raising the money, imprisoning the person
> again and again in perpetuity for contempt again and again (this has
> changed very recently in a few states, but not most)). This arises often
> from judgements for non-payment of civil liabilities. That does not detract
> from this statement:
>
> The court would likely feel that one could represent oneself if one
>> desired. Usually lack of finances is not taken into account by courts; only
>> real incapability (mental or physical or related to one's status as a minor)
>>
>
> Though it is said "one who represents himself usually has a fool for a
> client", that does not mean one is legally or physically incapable of
> mounting a case, thus if one does sit on one's cause of action (regardless
> of finances), laches may apply and the equitable remedies may be found to
> be out of reach.
>
>
> On 2017-07-15 02:06, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
>> Well, you are confusing civil and criminal law. I assure you winning a
>> laches defense is no sure thing, nor does it necessarily win the
>> entire case, it is more likely to only limit the period of the offense
>> for which the plaintiff may seek damages.
>>
>> And being a passive participant in Linus discussion is no tacit
>> license to your copyright rights over what the GPL already offers. If
>> Linus really wanted that, he'd have to call for opposition, and remove
>> works of opposing parties from the kernel.
>>
>

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

[Joel Rees]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:12 AM, deloptes  wrote:
> Richard Stallman wrote:

I don't think you should assume RMS is monitoring the debian list.

>> I am not trying to study the GRsecurity case because (0) it's
>> complicated, and it would take a lot of time to think about, (1) the
>> FSF has no say in the matter (it is about Linux) and (2) I don't think
>> the copany would heed whatever I might say.
>
> Could you explain why it should be complicated?

I don't want to pretend to be answering for Mr. Stallman, but I have done
a small bit of reading now that I see Bruce Perens is taking the time to
get involved.

> GPL states the rights
> obtained should be passed to the recipient, so the recipient should be
> allowed to redistribute the code (IMO) even if he/she is paying for
> improvements.
>
> It would be really nice if GRSec could help improve the kernel security in
> some way acceptable by and for the benefit of all. I don't think someone
> wants to punish them for what they are doing. It would be better to have
> mutual benefit if possible as the GPL does not prohibit modifying and
> redistributing the code and demanding a fee, it however does guarantee the
> right to redistribute is passed to the recipient, which is not the case
> here.

GRSecurity has posted their complaints here:

https://grsecurity.net/announce.php

They have a point, although bending the rules is not a good way to make
your point, in general. (And I'll note that they seem to be thinking they are
following RedHat's example here. At this point I'm more than half inclined
to think they might be following RedHat's example, for what that's worth.)

TheReg's recent article

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/grsecurity_linux_kernel_freeloaders/

indicates they think they might know which large, well-heeled, well-
financed major embedded industry player provided the straw that broke
GRSecurity's camel's back. But it is not just one player. The entire
embedded industry does not seem to understand how their products
came to be or how their future products will come to be.

That said, GRSecurity needs to find a different way to seek redress.

And someone in the community needs to find them a lawyer who will
take their case.

The GPL is a gentlemen's agreement.

When the members of the market refuse to behave like gentlemen, it
destroys the value of the agreement. It makes the agreement useless.

It will also destroy the market, so the moneyed players who are not
paying their fair share back into supporting the "small players" are
basically shortening the life-span of their own companies -- cutting
off their own noses to spite their faces, as we used to say.

I am personally not impressed with GRSecurity's hubris. Their tech
is only impressive in that it sort of helps make up a little bit for the
serious lacks in the security of every major CPU available today,
but especially the ones from Intel. So they do make a contribution,
or have until recently.

If the OP wants to solve this problem, (s)he has done enough
rabble-rowsing this way. He needs to start asking everyone he
knows if they know a good lawyer willing to work on contingency.
The rest of us who are concerned probably should, as well.

Or, perhaps, GRSecurity should go to one of the crowdfunding
sites. Or maybe someone could start a new crowdfunding site to
specialize in providing legal relief for the small guy. (Not sure how
that would work.)

(Yeah, I am willing to name and shame Intel here. If our civilization
survives the next two decades, our children will remember Intel's
processors with the same phrase that Ralph Nader made popular
relative to the auto industry. Who can compete when Intel refuses
to pay the price of making CPUs that are unsafe at progressively
higher speeds?)

-- 
Joel Rees

One of these days I'll get someone to pay me
to design a language that combines the best of Forth and C.
Then I'll be able to leap wide instruction sets with a single #ifdef,
run faster than a speeding infinite loop with a #define,
and stop all integer size bugs with my bare cast.
http://defining-computers.blogspot.com/2017/06/reinventing-computers.html

More of my delusions:
http://reiisi.blogspot.com/2017/05/do-not-pay-modern-danegeld-ransomware.html
http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/p/novels-i-am-writing.html

Re: If no enforcement takes place between two parties (GPL) Was: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel

[Bruce Perens]

Well, you are confusing civil and criminal law. I assure you winning a
laches defense is no sure thing, nor does it necessarily win the entire
case, it is more likely to only limit the period of the offense for which
the plaintiff may seek damages.

And being a passive participant in Linus discussion is no tacit license to
your copyright rights over what the GPL already offers. If Linus really
wanted that, he'd have to call for opposition, and remove works of opposing
parties from the kernel.

Re: If no enforcement takes place between two parties (GPL) Was: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel

[Bruce Perens]

A laches might be created if
all of the rights holders actually had the capability to enforce and were
refraining from doing so. But they are restrained by finances. So, I don't
believe there is any laches.

Re: If no enforcement takes place between two parties (GPL) Was: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel

[Bruce Perens]

Bradley is uncomfortable with your (not mine) cc list. You should drop him
from the next message.

Things are different for a collective work. I don't believe Linus can
represent the desires of all copyright holders.

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

[Bruce Perens]

Hi Bradley,

I was proceeding after others in the community had already made contact and
were rebuffed.

I have definitely looked at the principles of GPL-oriented enforcement that
SFC is currently distributing. I have some issues with your current policy.

Let's discuss the policy of forgiveness of past offenses in exchange for
current compliance. This has worked very well for the non-profit projects
that SFC is actually able to serve, because there is literally no reason
for the well-counseled offender not to settle with SFC. Both of us have
experience with highly visible deep-pockets offenders who have not been
well enough counseled to accept this easy exit from violation.

As you know, I have a compliance business. I have advised every client
without exception to come into compliance with the GPL as soon as possible,
and where allowed I have engineered that compliance. The companies that
reject that advice do not become my customer.

We should remain aware that Richard and Eben made an exception to the
policy of not asking for financial damages in the case of Cisco, for quite
a large settlement.

With the advent of dual-licensing as used by Artifex (Ghostscript) since
1984, MySQL since the 1990's, and others, we have a paradigm that arguably
makes the GPL more fair to more people, especially the GPL developers
themselves. Those who wish to participate in the GPL's partnership of
sharing do, those who do not pay money, and the money goes to paying the
developers to make more good Free Software under the GPL. The developers do
not have to wear hair shirts or spend their days as waiters or as
programmers of proprietary software for big companies, but can support
their families while creating Free Software. This worked for Peter Deutsch
who has been able to enjoy retirement as a composer and musician as a
result, and of course for Michael Widenius and his partners in MySQL. We
are all using the result of these dual-license enterprises.

It seems to me that it would be fair for these dual-licensing companies,
who offered the GPL but made dual licensing available to those who did not
wish to accept the GPL terms, to exact the fees of lost commercial
licensing from commercial infringers. Those infringers clearly had paid
licensing as an option. Dual-licensing is not inimical to the philosophy of
Free Software, and SFC should support the dual-license enterprises in
collecting fair damages.

I am also concerned because in our society there is a right to sue and
collect damages in compensation for violation of your rights, and SFC may
have allowed itself, without planning to, to be in the position of
suppressing developer's rights. Obviously I am aware of the excesses of the
"intellectual property" and tort system, and moderation is necessary. But
entirely suppressing the right to collect damages doesn't sound like a good
solution.

Then we have the issue of SFC's obvious inability to pursue all but a
fraction of one percent of all violators. Besides the obvious cases which
remain untried, I have in my own practice twice witnessed SFC so
short-staffed as to be unable to respond for many months to a company that
was attempting to settle with SFC, and another company that had settled and
was attempting to fulfill its continuing obligation to SFC. So, here SFC is
as the only organization with funding to pursue violations of the GPL,
closing out the avenue for other such organizations to fund themselves
through settlement and take up some of the case load. And the developers
don't get served and get de-motivated by the persistent and un-remedied
infringements. So, unfortunately, the principles of community-oriented
enforcement aren't actually serving the community.

Recently, we have observed:

1. Failure of SFC or its funded parties to attempt to appeal the VMWare
decision or find another plaintiff.
2. A consultation with the Linux kernel developers who are not terribly in
favor of enforcement, I feel due to prejudices so loudly expressed by Linus
Torvalds, who just doesn't accept that lawyers are of any benefit to
society.
3. No visible enforcement for quite a while.
4. Very many egregious violations in our sight that we have no way to cure.

So eventually, Bradley, we lose patience. I have no way to fund enforcement
of GPL violations. I don't have confidence that you can ever handle more
than 1% of them, and you don't tell me what 1% you are working on. I only
have publicity as a tool.

Thanks

Bruce



On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn 
wrote:

> [ I'm not on debian-user regularly but I was dragged into the thread by a
>   large cc list that Bruce started.  Removing individual email addresses of
>   possible non-list members, other than Bruce. ]
>
> Bruce, if you haven't looked at the Principles of of Community-Oriented
> Enforcement  >,
> which were co-published by Conservancy and the FSF, and 

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

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

[ I'm not on debian-user regularly but I was dragged into the thread by a
  large cc list that Bruce started.  Removing individual email addresses of
  possible non-list members, other than Bruce. ]

Bruce, if you haven't looked at the Principles of of Community-Oriented
Enforcement ,
which were co-published by Conservancy and the FSF, and endorsed by a wide
range of other organizations, including FSF Europe and the OSI, you should
definitely do so.

The most relevant principle regarding your public post referenced in this
thread is: "Confidentiality can increase receptiveness and responsiveness."
You don't indicate in your blog post that you put in efforts to resolve this
matter confidentially and sought compliance in a collaborative and friendly
way first.  That's a mistake, in my opinion.

Conservancy often spends years of friendly negotiations, attempting to
resolve a GPL enforcement matter before making public statements about it.
We have found in our extensive experience of enforcing the GPL that early
public statements sometimes thwarts not just our enforcement efforts, but
the enforcement efforts of others.

Finally, I have an important general statement that those concerned about
violations should consider: With hundreds of known GPL violations going on
around the world every day, we should as a community be careful not to
over-prioritize any particular violation merely because the press becomes
interested.  Rather, the giant worldwide queue of known GPL violations
should be prioritized by figuring out which ones, if solved, will do the
most to maximize software freedom for all users.
-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn
Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy

Become a Conservancy Supporter today: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter

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

[Bruce Perens]

Thank you. I did not have a copy of the Grsecurity Stable Patch Access
Agreement before, and I've linked it to my article
.
IMO it's quite imprudent of them to put down in writing how they restrict
your GPL rights.

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

[Bruce Perens]

I published an advisory regarding Grsecurity at

http://perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/

Thanks

Bruce

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Richard Stallman  wrote:
>>
>> I am not trying to study the GRsecurity case because (0) it's
>> complicated, and it would take a lot of time to think about, (1) the
>> FSF has no say in the matter (it is about Linux) and (2) I don't think
>> the copany would heed whatever I might say.
>
>

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

[deloptes]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> I am not trying to study the GRsecurity case because (0) it's
> complicated, and it would take a lot of time to think about, (1) the
> FSF has no say in the matter (it is about Linux) and (2) I don't think
> the copany would heed whatever I might say.

Could you explain why it should be complicated? GPL states the rights
obtained should be passed to the recipient, so the recipient should be
allowed to redistribute the code (IMO) even if he/she is paying for
improvements.

It would be really nice if GRSec could help improve the kernel security in
some way acceptable by and for the benefit of all. I don't think someone
wants to punish them for what they are doing. It would be better to have
mutual benefit if possible as the GPL does not prohibit modifying and
redistributing the code and demanding a fee, it however does guarantee the
right to redistribute is passed to the recipient, which is not the case
here.

regards

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

[Bruce Perens]

I think I'll be able to write something to inform present and potential
customers of the lawsuit risk and their position as contributory
infringers. This is more effective than writing to the company.

Thanks

Bruce

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Richard Stallman  wrote:

> [[[ 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. ]]]
>
> I am not trying to study the GRsecurity case because (0) it's
> complicated, and it would take a lot of time to think about, (1) the
> FSF has no say in the matter (it is about Linux) and (2) I don't think
> the copany would heed whatever I might say.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

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

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

I am not trying to study the GRsecurity case because (0) it's
complicated, and it would take a lot of time to think about, (1) the
FSF has no say in the matter (it is about Linux) and (2) I don't think
the copany would heed whatever I might say.

-- 
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.

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

[deloptes]

Michael Fothergill wrote:

> Where would we be without spam and trolling?

Where would we be without Bill Shatner, Kay Sievers and alike :)

regards

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

[Michael Fothergill]

On 15 June 2017 at 16:41,  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?
>

​because we are all suffering from troll envy...

The pseudo-angst ridden discussions about systemd on the site here are not
quite as  seductive as this post...

We can feign some fake outrage and bask in it for a time and then decide
that we must "get a life" as Bill Shatner advised the trekkies all those
years ago.

Where would we be without spam and trolling?

MF
​


> 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) )
>
>
>

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

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 02:25:54PM +0200, tony wrote:
> On 15/06/17 17:41, aconcernedfoss...@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?
> > He is also violating the license grant, Courts would not be fooled by
> > his scheme to prevent redistribution.
> well, what, for example, have *you* done about it?

Don't bother. The original post is a troll. It has been carpet-bombed
(according to the headers) to

  debian-user@lists.debian.org
  debian-proj...@lists.debian.org
  linux-japan...@vger.kernel.org
  linux-lap...@vger.kernel.org
  linux-lugn...@vger.kernel.org
  linux-n...@vger.kernel.org

And judging by that it has been cross-posted to even more,
just piecemeal, so to not raise red flags in mailing list
protection software.

I mean: the original topic is interesting, controversial and
all, and there's a lot to learn about licensing, governance,
communities and many other things.

It's even legitimate to grab this opportunity to discuss that
topic (as some have done upthread).

But don't expect aconcernedfossdev to answer to anything.
Heck, I doubt that (s)he has even the bandwidth to read a
significant fraction of the ripples (s)he has started on
those 6 mailing lists alone.

This behaviour is highly destructive and I think it shouldn't
be rewarded. I propose to y'all to start a new thread on
grsecurity if there is any interest in the discussion (the lwn
article mentioned upthread is definitely worth a read).

Cheers
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAllD2U0ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbcUACfeWgf3ZZp6MWVAhS6dAKeQbHh
I30An0yPeYVvmYfOqhMWtPOKgY/2Ol77
=QVn9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

[tony]

On 15/06/17 17:41, aconcernedfoss...@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?
> He is also violating the license grant, Courts would not be fooled by
> his scheme to prevent redistribution.
well, what, for example, have *you* done about it?

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

[Lisi Reisz]

On Thursday 15 June 2017 16:41:56 aconcernedfoss...@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?

It isn't that we don't care.  It is that we feel helpless, which is just what 
Bard Spengler is banking on.  "Someone" needs to take him on in court. :-(

Lisi

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

[deloptes]

Latincom wrote:


> 
> deloptes, do you have a link to systemd background information, please?

Not at the moment. I read multiple stories in the past few years - mostly
mailing lists and articles from computer related sites. I don't gather this
information, because I am not going to cite it.

Most impressive key systemd developer banned :D I love this story - and some
accuse Linus was ignorant and not politically correct :D
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/14/04/04/1523231/linus-torvalds-suspends-key-linux-developer
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/2/420

http://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-and-others-on-linuxs-systemd/

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2841873/meet-systemd-the-controversial-project-taking-over-a-linux-distro-near-you.html
http://blog.jorgenschaefer.de/2014/07/why-systemd.html

regards

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

[Latincom]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 22:38:07 +0200, deloptes wrote:


> The story behind is really interesting and pretty long. I read about the
> conflict perhaps 1/2y ago. Some of the accusations by GRSec make sense,
> however they do not justify their policy.
> In fact this is the best proof (IMO) how decentralized and open
> idea/project/work etc fails. It fails on both ends the Linux and the
> GRSec end because the first is not motivated to do good and the second
> to do good for free it fails badly.
> I do however think GRSec are wrong as the OP states, they clearly
> violate the license agreements.
> IMO everyone in the linux community should know the background of that
> story same as the background of systemd ... but there is sooo much to
> know
> 
> regards

deloptes, do you have a link to systemd background information, please?

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

[deloptes]

Michael Milliman wrote:

> Perhaps you could post a link where some of us can bone up on the issue?

If I was the OP or I was making some statement I would like to back up I
would, otherwise I assume people on that list can babyfeed themselves.

regards

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

[deloptes]

Michael Fothergill wrote:

> But you have beaten me to the punch in a subtle way which I am both
> impressed and humbled by.

I assume there are other similar stories, but I don't know much of them -
time is precious nowdays. However systemd was inevitable and revealed a an
interesting story. Some time later I read this GRSec story... and I had a
feeling it's getting repetitive also in some extent Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice
and LibreOffice, GTK3 ... to just give some other examples. I think this
reflects the trends in our society ... and too many demanding political
correctness being not able to accept that there are people who don't give a
sh*t, but are worth working with. So both sides are becoming a victim of
their own ego.

regards

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

[Michael Fothergill]

On 15 June 2017 at 21:38, deloptes  wrote:

> Richard Owlett wrote:
>
> > On 06/15/2017 02:10 PM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Hmm, am I feeding the spammer?  [snip]
> >
> > Likely
> >
> >>
> >> PS: aconcernedfossdev doesn't "command" much respect in my mind,
> >> especially with no better explanation of the problem than what I read
> >> here.
> >
> > +1
>
> The story behind is really interesting and pretty long. I read about the
> conflict perhaps 1/2y ago. Some of the accusations by GRSec make sense,
> however they do not justify their policy.
> In fact this is the best proof (IMO) how decentralized and open
> idea/project/work etc fails. It fails on both ends the Linux and the GRSec
> end because the first is not motivated to do good and the second to do good
> for free it fails badly.
> I do however think GRSec are wrong as the OP states, they clearly violate
> the license agreements.
> IMO everyone in the linux community should know the background of that
> story
> same as the background of systemd ... but there is sooo much to know
>

​When I read the OP's rhetorical question:​

​Why does not one person here care?​


​I was moved to say: because they are obsessed with systemd ​

​But you have beaten me to the punch in a subtle way which I am both
impressed and humbled by.

MF​

regards
>
>
>
>

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

[Michael Milliman]

On 06/15/2017 03:38 PM, deloptes wrote:
> Richard Owlett wrote:
> 
>> On 06/15/2017 02:10 PM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Hmm, am I feeding the spammer?  [snip]
>>
>> Likely
>>
>>>
>>> PS: aconcernedfossdev doesn't "command" much respect in my mind,
>>> especially with no better explanation of the problem than what I read
>>> here.
>>
>> +1
> 
> The story behind is really interesting and pretty long. I read about the
> conflict perhaps 1/2y ago. Some of the accusations by GRSec make sense,
> however they do not justify their policy.
This is the first I've heard of an issue, however, I'm not really
plugged in to that type of news, so it is not surprising.

> In fact this is the best proof (IMO) how decentralized and open
> idea/project/work etc fails. It fails on both ends the Linux and the GRSec
> end because the first is not motivated to do good and the second to do good
> for free it fails badly.
> I do however think GRSec are wrong as the OP states, they clearly violate
> the license agreements.
> IMO everyone in the linux community should know the background of that story
> same as the background of systemd ... but there is sooo much to know
Perhaps you could post a link where some of us can bone up on the issue?
> 
> regards
> 
> 
> 

-- 
73's,
WB5VQX -- The Very Quick X-ray

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

[Andy Smith]

Hello,

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:38:07PM +0200, deloptes wrote:
> I do however think GRSec are wrong as the OP states, they clearly violate
> the license agreements.
> IMO everyone in the linux community should know the background of that story
> same as the background of systemd ... but there is sooo much to know

As usual I think LWN provides excellent coverage of this issue.

https://lwn.net/Articles/721848/

If possible I do recommend people pay for an LWN subscription. The
work they do is worth paying for.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

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

[deloptes]

Richard Owlett wrote:

> On 06/15/2017 02:10 PM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hmm, am I feeding the spammer?  [snip]
> 
> Likely
> 
>>
>> PS: aconcernedfossdev doesn't "command" much respect in my mind,
>> especially with no better explanation of the problem than what I read
>> here.
> 
> +1

The story behind is really interesting and pretty long. I read about the
conflict perhaps 1/2y ago. Some of the accusations by GRSec make sense,
however they do not justify their policy.
In fact this is the best proof (IMO) how decentralized and open
idea/project/work etc fails. It fails on both ends the Linux and the GRSec
end because the first is not motivated to do good and the second to do good
for free it fails badly.
I do however think GRSec are wrong as the OP states, they clearly violate
the license agreements.
IMO everyone in the linux community should know the background of that story
same as the background of systemd ... but there is sooo much to know

regards

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

[Richard Owlett]

On 06/15/2017 02:10 PM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

Hmm, am I feeding the spammer?  [snip]


Likely



PS: aconcernedfossdev doesn't "command" much respect in my mind, especially
with no better explanation of the problem than what I read here.


+1

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

[rhkramer]

Hmm, am I feeding the spammer?  Some comments to the OP interspersed below--or 
maybe I'll just top post...

I don't know too much about the issue, and your second paragraph doesn't help 
much.

Let me ask, does Linus care--has he or some other noteworthy in the Linux / 
foss world made some sort of comment?

And have they started any sort of proceeding (negotiation, legal proceeding, 
???)?

I care about FOSS (or foss) and think that "users" in any sense of the word 
should comply with the appropriate licenses, and, if they don't some sort of 
action should be undertaken to enforce compliance.

So, why don't you cite a few (or one) cogent explanation of the problem and 
the position by a "noteworthy" (for lack of a better term).

PS: aconcernedfossdev doesn't "command" much respect in my mind, especially 
with no better explanation of the problem than what I read here.

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 11:41:56 AM aconcernedfoss...@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?
> 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) )

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

[aconcernedfossdev]

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) )