Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL - What about GRSECURITY?
Bradly Spengler continues to violate the GPL, it's fine now tho: he's creating his own reality and everyone is accepting it: https://mobile.twitter.com/spendergrsec/status/1349086946560253952 He "corrects" people saying "grsec isn't gpl anymore", informing them he's simply "running a subscription service". This is THE reality now: since none of you, except for Bruce Perens, did anything. None of you care about free software. Tweet See new Tweets Conversation アルミ @schrotthaufen · Jan 11 I don’t know how many hours I poured into getting my kernel config for grsec to work (because pebkac), and then a few years later it ceases to be gpl Loudly crying face Quote Tweet DWILE @dwizzzleMSFT · Jan 11 The biggest impediment to security on Linux is the same as Windows. Its currently much too hard for the average person to deploy hardening policies and use hardened kernels. The tyranny of the kernel conf reigns. The reality is a few Linux users will ever touch a conf Show this thread Brad Spengler @spendergrsec · Jan 12 Always was GPLv2, always will be. GPL doesn't mean "I can demand free work/support/warranty." Doesn't mean you have to like decades-old subscription policies like Red Hat has, but neither do I like people making things up b/c they want something for $0. The GPL and a Condition on Providing Future Versions or Services » Chhabra® Law Section 6 of the GNU Public License (GPL) version 2 states, in part, that “[y]ou may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein.” Naturally, the... clfip.com アルミ @schrotthaufen · Jan 12 I may have gotten that wrong. What I meant was: “It’s not free anymore, and last time I inquired about licensing to end users the answer was ‘no’”. I don’t blame you for turning it into a payed only product. If I was in your shoes, I’d have done the same given the circumstances. Brad Spengler @spendergrsec · Jan 12 It's important to be specific about these things though, because people will take your words and infer certain things that simply aren't true. Same regarding the phrase of "licensing to end users" -- we don't sell a license, we offer a subscription service. Brad Spengler @spendergrsec Replying to @spendergrsec and @schrotthaufen Anyone who receives a copy of grsecurity, direct customer of ours or not, has a license to it: the GPLv2. It may seem to be a pedantic point, but it's important. 8:12 PM · Jan 12, 2021·Twitter Web App 1 Retweet On 2021-01-17 21:58, Boris Lukashev wrote: Why do you send this stuff to people? First off, its no longer even accurate - grsec code _changes_ to Linux have been deemed as "never to be adopted" by Linus. Without those changes, their GCC plugins can't work properly, and those plugins are part of the build-toolchain, not the C source. So even if you gave them a billion dollars tomorrow, Linux would still never use the work. The whole GPL mess is broken, clearly, and nobody is looking to enforce it - industry is waiting it out till Redox and BSDs become more viable for production OS. So why send these emails? Venting purposes? On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 1:03 PM wrote: Linus etc do not give a FUCK that Grsecurity is BLATANTLY violating the GPL. So why do you fucking retards complain about this? DURR BECUAUSE WE DON'T HAVE 2 DO ANYTHING, CAN JUST COMMISERATE ( https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ ) -- Boris Lukashev Systems Architect Semper Victus [1] Links: -- [1] https://www.sempervictus.com
Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL - What about GRSECURITY?
First off, its no longer even accurate Wrong. Grsecurity is violating the Linux Copyright by preventing redistribution, by adding additional terms between it and distributees. It does not matter if Linus, the weak faggot, is "never going to include" it. Grsecurity is violating the GCC copyright for the same reason. The whole GPL mess is broken, clearly, and nobody is looking to enforce it - industry is waiting it out till Redox and BSDs become It doesn't FUCKING matter what the "INDUSTRY" is doing or wants. You techies are FUCKING FAGGOTS. YOU own the COPYRIGHT to whatever you "contributed" to Linux (you never signed over your copyrights). It does N O T matter what your fucking "bosses" in "DUH INDUSTRY" want you to do or do not want you to do. YOU can and HAVE TO SUE. I hate you fucking people for your inaction. You're like a hive mind of weak castrated scum. 'DURR OUR 'peer' ARE AGAINST IT SO WE CAN DO NOTHING' - White Tech __FAGGOTS__ Apologies to actual homosexuals... using this word "faggot" is an affront to you: since it compares you to weak white quisling males but english doesn't give many options I just hate you people. You just let it happen. Then you cope "well, we weren't going to include it anyway". - Additionally:Linus, for years, induced others to assist him in his work on his kernel, by claiming that those who violated the share-and-share alike provisions of the license would be sued. He explained AT LENGHT the "deal": you contribute code, if anyone modifies it they cannot close the code, if they violate that they will be sued. This is what he told his supporters and those who helped him. A reasonable person would surmise that Linus was making a promise to sue violators of the Linux Kernel License. INSTEAD: He is paid 1.3 million dollars per year, and does not say a word. (What is he being paid for? We can guess: To forgo the legal right to sue? To NOT encourage suits? To DISCOURAGE suits?) That is: The linux kernel contributors detrimentally relied on Linus' words: his false promise of action. Yes: he should be punished. They would not have done the programming work without those false statements of Linus' On 2021-01-17 21:58, Boris Lukashev wrote: Why do you send this stuff to people? First off, its no longer even accurate - grsec code _changes_ to Linux have been deemed as "never to be adopted" by Linus. Without those changes, their GCC plugins can't work properly, and those plugins are part of the build-toolchain, not the C source. So even if you gave them a billion dollars tomorrow, Linux would still never use the work. The whole GPL mess is broken, clearly, and nobody is looking to enforce it - industry is waiting it out till Redox and BSDs become more viable for production OS. So why send these emails? Venting purposes? On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 1:03 PM wrote: Linus etc do not give a FUCK that Grsecurity is BLATANTLY violating the GPL. So why do you fucking retards complain about this? DURR BECUAUSE WE DON'T HAVE 2 DO ANYTHING, CAN JUST COMMISERATE ( https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ ) -- Boris Lukashev Systems Architect Semper Victus [1] Links: -- [1] https://www.sempervictus.com
Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL - What about GRSECURITY?
Linus etc do not give a FUCK that Grsecurity is BLATANTLY violating the GPL. So why do you fucking retards complain about this? DURR BECUAUSE WE DON'T HAVE 2 DO ANYTHING, CAN JUST COMMISERATE ( https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ )
Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL - What about GRSECURITY?
Linus etc do not give a FUCK that Grsecurity is BLATANTLY violating the GPL. So why do you fucking retards complain about this? DURR BECUAUSE WE DON'T HAVE 2 DO ANYTHING, CAN JUST COMMISERATE ( https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ )
Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL
Linus etc do not give a FUCK that Grsecurity is BLATANTLY violating the GPL. So why do you fucking retards complain about this? DURR BECUAUSE WE DON'T HAVE 2 DO ANYTHING, CAN JUST COMMISERATE
Is Trump dead?
Is Trump dead? He never made it to the Capitol, was he killed? There's radio silence now. As a linux Kernel dev how does this make you feel?
Grsecurity GPL Violations: Linus/FSF/SFConservancy won't defend. Claw back your copyrights. BSD-in-Practice was not the deal.
Silence is consent. Are there FOSS developers making decent money via Patreon, GoFundMe, whatever? Yes, Grsecurity is making good money. They simply added a no-redistribution agreement to their patch of the Linux Kernel. ( https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ ) The FSF, Software Freedom Conservancy, and the Corporate Linux Kernel Developers all agree that this is fine (silence is consent). https://twitter.com/spendergrsec/status/1293155787859206146 Importantly, neither the FSF nor the SFC, nor in fact any actual lawyer agrees with this bizarre claim from an anonymous troll. More info about the source of the claim can be found here: https://grsecurity.net/setting_the_record_straight_on_oss_v_perens_part1 Thanks for doing your part, "Dr" to continue the troll's harrassment LOL. " #GRSecurity violates both the Linux kernel's copyright and the #GCC #copyright by forbidding redistribution of the patches (in their Access Agreement): which are non-seperable derivative works... Contributors should blanket-revoke their contributions from all free-takers since they didn't agree to BSD-in-Practice. They should also claw-back any transferred copyrights from the FSF using the 30 year clawback provision in the US Copyright Act. Design of how a program works is a copyrightable aspect (Ex: How RMS designed GCC 30 years ago or so etc) Had to repost this because the linux admins deleted the email: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/28/2518 The message you requested cannot be found. The message you requested cannot be found. The message with the url http://feisty.lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/28/2518 does not exist in the database. Grsecurity GPL Violations: Bring a CASE act claim every time GrSecurity releases a new infringing work? (GRSecurity blatantly violates the clause in the Linux kernel and GCC copyright licenses regarding adding addtional terms between the licensee of the kernel / gcc and furthur down-the-line licensees, regarding derivative works) (The linux kernel has 1000s of copyright holders) (All who shake at the knees at the thought of initiating a federal Copyright lawsuit)
Grsecurity GPL Violations: Linus/FSF/SFConservancy won't defend. Claw back your copyrights. BSD-in-Practice was not the deal.
Silence is consent. Are there FOSS developers making decent money via Patreon, GoFundMe, whatever? Yes, Grsecurity is making good money. They simply added a no-redistribution agreement to their patch of the Linux Kernel. ( https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ ) The FSF, Software Freedom Conservancy, and the Corporate Linux Kernel Developers all agree that this is fine (silence is consent). https://twitter.com/spendergrsec/status/1293155787859206146 Importantly, neither the FSF nor the SFC, nor in fact any actual lawyer agrees with this bizarre claim from an anonymous troll. More info about the source of the claim can be found here: https://grsecurity.net/setting_the_record_straight_on_oss_v_perens_part1 Thanks for doing your part, "Dr" to continue the troll's harrassment LOL. " #GRSecurity violates both the Linux kernel's copyright and the #GCC #copyright by forbidding redistribution of the patches (in their Access Agreement): which are non-seperable derivative works... Contributors should blanket-revoke their contributions from all free-takers since they didn't agree to BSD-in-Practice. They should also claw-back any transferred copyrights from the FSF using the 30 year clawback provision in the US Copyright Act. Design of how a program works is a copyrightable aspect (Ex: How RMS designed GCC 30 years ago or so etc) Had to repost this because the linux admins deleted the email: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/28/2518 The message you requested cannot be found. The message you requested cannot be found. The message with the url http://feisty.lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/28/2518 does not exist in the database. Grsecurity GPL Violations: Bring a CASE act claim every time GrSecurity releases a new infringing work? (GRSecurity blatantly violates the clause in the Linux kernel and GCC copyright licenses regarding adding addtional terms between the licensee of the kernel / gcc and furthur down-the-line licensees, regarding derivative works) (The linux kernel has 1000s of copyright holders) (All who shake at the knees at the thought of initiating a federal Copyright lawsuit)
Grsecurity GPL Violations: Bring a CASE act claim every time GrSecurity releases a new infringing work?
Should each Linux copyright owner of whom's copyright is being violated (By GrSecurity) bring a "small claims copyright" case every time GrSecurity sends a new infringing patch to a customer? (GRSecurity blatantly violates the clause in the Linux kernel and GCC copyright licenses regarding adding addtional terms between the licensee of the kernel / gcc and furthur down-the-line licensees, regarding derivative works) (The linux kernel has 1000s of copyright holders) (All who shake at the knees at the thought of initiating a federal Copyright lawsuit) (GrSecurity's main Programmer: Brad Spengler: has shining resplendent blue eyes; like sapphires, however) > https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/9503848/congress-case-copyright-reforms-covid-19-relief-bill/ >The CASE Act creates a new small claims system in the US that allows copyright holders to pursue damages for copyright infringement without filing a federal lawsuit. These claims would be decided by copyright officers, not judges and juries, and could involve no more than $15,000 per work infringed upon, and $30,000 total Does this new law create broader per-violation rights for the copyright holder? The then current copyright law makes it quite hard to go after violators: usually the lawsuit costs more than any hope of recovery. Every version you want to sue over, if you actually want to recover attorneys fees and statutory damages (not just whatever revenue you can proove (good luck)), has to be registered with the copyright office; same or similar violations subsequent to a registration by the same violator DO NOT grant you Attorney's fees and Statutory recovery; the same of a later version doesn't either. It's hard to get any money out of a violator. Especially how Free Software and Opensource copyright holders do things... (never registering their copyrights seemingly, always afraid, cowering before CoC's, being servants and slaves, doing it all for free, being kicked out of their own "societies)
Bring a CASE act claim every time GrSecurity releases a new infringing work?
Should each Linux copyright owner of whom's copyright is being violated (By GrSecurity) bring a "small claims copyright" case every time GrSecurity sends a new infringing patch to a customer? (GRSecurity blatantly violates the clause in the Linux kernel and GCC copyright licenses regarding adding addtional terms between the licensee of the kernel / gcc and furthur down-the-line licensees, regarding derivative works) (The linux kernel has 1000s of copyright holders) (All who shake at the knees at the thought of initiating a federal Copyright lawsuit) (GrSecurity's main Programmer: Brad Spengler: has shining resplendent blue eyes; like sapphires, however) > https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/9503848/congress-case-copyright-reforms-covid-19-relief-bill/ >The CASE Act creates a new small claims system in the US that allows copyright holders to pursue damages for copyright infringement without filing a federal lawsuit. These claims would be decided by copyright officers, not judges and juries, and could involve no more than $15,000 per work infringed upon, and $30,000 total. Does this new law create broader per-violation rights for the copyright holder? The then current copyright law makes it quite hard to go after violators: usually the lawsuit costs more than any hope of recovery. Every version you want to sue over, if you actually want to recover attorneys fees and statutory damages (not just whatever revenue you can proove (good luck)), has to be registered with the copyright office; same or similar violations subsequent to a registration by the same violator DO NOT grant you Attorney's fees and Statutory recovery; the same of a later version doesn't either. It's hard to get any money out of a violator. Especially how Free Software and Opensource copyright holders do things... (never registering their copyrights seemingly, always afraid, cowering before CoC's, being servants and slaves, doing it all for free, being kicked out of their own "societies)
Biden Won!
I am happy. Cirno defeated the frog.
Bradly Spengler interview (GRSecurity) (Blatant GPL violators vs GCC and Linux Kernel)
Thought you might be interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv3a2tzUTn4 GRSecurity violates both the Linux kernel's copyright and the GCC copyright by forbidding redistribution of the patches (in their Access Agreement): which are non-seperable derivative works of the kernel and (in the case of the GCC plugins) GCC. Yes: threatening consequences if a licensee redistributes is a restraint on the "rights" given by the original copyright owners. Those "plugins" he is talking about as-well as the kernel patch violate the GPLv2. The GPLv2 _FORBIDS_ adding additional clauses not-within the GPL between the derivative-licensee and the down-the-line licensee. Bradly Spengler / OpenSourceSecurity are violating this stipulation, blatantly, in writing. They are also violating the "no additional restrictions" stipulation in the GPLv2. They ARE violating the Linux and the GCC copyright.
Re: [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology -- Black and white does not refer to race.
You have it all wrong. The black in blacklist refers to women, as in the yin and the yang. The white refers to men: a constructive force. (While the women are destructive in society: always pitting the whitelist (men) against each-other, because said list didn't obey the blacklist (where women belong). You also have failed on the master/slave terminology: Slave refers to cute little girls: which were traditionally the slaves to men. Of-course you white idiots don't understand this: You don't like girls: you'd rather dominate other men. In the past, before the perfidy of the western man infected the entirety of the world, men were the ba'al (master) of you cute young girls. Men married little girls, and more than one of them. Men were happy. Then the "white" man happened and corrupted even the colours themselves. (Un)Naturally you wouldn't notice any of this because none of you actually like girls: you want to dominate other men; so that's what's on your mind: Dominating Black Men. Except linus. He caved to all of this due to the influence of his daughters, and why is that? Because his daughters are the only young girls he's ever been around; thus being denied child brides; like our next President Biden, he fell under the influence of his own young female relatives. And why is that? Because you idiot white men bar him and all from marrying a harem of cute young girls. You'd give your life to stop that. YHWH explicitly allows child brides. The Torah explicitly allows men to marry female children, including in cases of the rape (tahphas) of the girl child: Devarim chapter 22, verse 28. Key words: Na'ar (child (hebrew masoretic text)), Padia (child: padia+philos = paedophillia (greek septuagint)) Puella (young girl (latin vulgate)) Nachmanides points out that a child may be called na'ar from the moment he is born Rebecca was a child, not an adult. Na'ar means child in ancient hebrew, not adult, and the original hebrew in these passages is na'ar, not na'arah. All you have to do is read the actual hebrew glyphs, not whatever your interlinear renders them as. You /pol/s are illiterate. discover-the-truth.com/2016/11/17/what-was-rebeccas-age-when-given-away-in-marriage-naar/
Why no-one fights for "white men" (hint: they want it done for them for free) (regarding recent "unrest")
Dear LKML, RMS, ESR: Due to the recent "unrest", some who are ignorant of history, or simply young, are alarmed by happenstances: "Why won't anyone do anything, why won't anyone fight on our side?" In response to the chan post >>>/pol/264739416 an answer was provided: YHWH allows men to marry girl children. White men do not: that is why no one fights for them: not even their own: no pay no work; they are all divided against eachother and would rather lynch eachother for glancing at a cute girl and worship "muh whoite wuhman". Their reproductive cycle has been broken and they cannot win. Who would fight for a piece of shit that is their enemy? ** YHWH allows child brides The Torah explicitly allows men to marry female children, including in cases of the rape (tahphas) of the girl child: Devarim chapter 22, verse 28. Key words: Na'ar (child (hebrew masoretic text)), Padia (child: padia+philos = paedophillia (greek septuagint)) Puella (young girl (latin vulgate)) Nachmanides points out that a child may be called na'ar from the moment he is born Rebecca was a child, not an adult. Na'ar means child in ancient hebrew, not adult, and the original hebrew in these passages is na'ar, not na'arah. All you have to do is read the actual hebrew glyphs, not whatever your interlinear renders them as. You /pol/s are illiterate. discover-the-truth.com/2016/11/17/what-was-rebeccas-age-when-given-away-in-marriage-naar/ ** (This is the same reason south african afrikkaner young men didn't fight: hey pops gunna pay me? Oh you would hang me instead if I even look at a cute young girl? Sorry then) White men do not deserve your support: even if you are a white; your "fellow" whites are traditional enemies: any group or persons who would deny you marrying their young daughters is not a friends, countryman, or ally. Allies form ties by blood. Enemies shed the blood of anyone who would try: ask yourself: what would your "fellow man" do to you? The white man prevents you from having a young girl bride anywhere on this earth: he hates you more than even a traditional enemy: who would leave you to your own devices when not engaging him. It is better to die than to help your enemy: do not be a useful idiot for those who will not pay you the wages of your life.
I'm being accused of "killing foss", how do I respond?
Dear RMS, a commentator is now accusing me of being the executioner of "foss" : oh it's you, the schizo who killed foss by trying to defend it and thinks he's a lawyer Later the commentator clarifies : You went on a mailing list for some foss project with the intention of exposing a patent violation by some other project using the code, but instead of talking about that, you just ranted for a few days about how much you want to fuck little girls. Then RMS got labeled a pedophile and eaten up by cancel culture. I'm flabbergasted you're honestly too stupid to see the connection. The issue is copyright, not patent, and there was nothing wrong with your past statements. I would think that the fact that the GPL is effectively toothless is what would "kill free and opensource software" by causing would-be contributors to now lack faith in the "share and share alike" promise of the GPL. The FSF won't enforce it's GCC copyrights, nor will the linux kernel contributors (both regarding GRSecurity linux kernel patches and GCC plugins (and their no-redistribution attached clauses)) I also wonder about this for a few days invective. Are days suddenly a euphemism such as is imagined regarding various creation stories? How should I respond and set the record straight? And when did "FOSS" die? I remember when that term was coined, early 2000s, has it now fallen out of favor? Why is it my fault? I never really liked that term to begin with: it's a corporate conflation of two specific idea sets: A gloss. If said term is gone what is the injury?
