Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from redistributing source code
June 1 2016 4:27 PM, "Xen" wrote: > concernedfoss...@teknik.io schreef op 01-06-2016 16:15: > >> He has frustrated the purpose of the agreement (the grant) he had with >> the original licensor, and thus >> the grant fails. In other words: he has violated the license. > > So what do you want? For him to go out of business? > > Do you want free access to his work? Which is it? It doesn't matter what I want, but I ask: He had open access to a much greater work, why does it bother you if those whom he took the larger work from might want access to whatever changes he had made to their work and has distributed to others; or simply that the others to whom the changes have been distributed be able to contribute it back to they whom have originated the original work in the first place. It seems very strange that you seem to object to this. It is only fair. Spengler could have written his own kernel from scratch, or hired a team, like those before him did. Instead he forked a GPL'd work, and the developers did infact choose the GPL and not the BSD license, and for a reason. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: the right to make a difference
To my knowledge, the intention of most of those who license their work out under the GPL is essentially to recieve a different form of payment: Rather than demanding a monetary reward upfront, the hope, and the license is the written vehicle for the possible fulfillment of that hope, is that the reward will be payed in labour. IE: Rights holder puts this work out free, under the expectation than any furthur work done on it will come back to him. It is very unfair for a licensee to then take pains to ensure that the additional labour, the work, never is returned to the original licensor. In the linux world, I recall clearly, this was very much the stated /reason/ to use the GPL over the BSD license. That is the trade off is no payment upfront, but payment in kind later. Here Brad Spengler is taking from the original licensor, but has decided now that the other side of the deal he will not uphold. So I think the unfairness is very much there now. Spengler is now actually getting something for nothing, where before he was not, and the whole intention of many of the contributors to linux has been subverted. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
the right to make a difference
concernedfoss...@teknik.io schreef op 01-06-2016 16:00: You are not permitted to erect barriers in the way of sublicencees making use of their right to redistribute, a right that is granted by the original rights-holder. First you must convince a court that these rights have any merit in reality. Something can also be in violation of common law and common principles. The right to redistribute, after all, you might say, becomes slightly weaker every time it goes away from the original copyright holders. After all, are you violating the original author's right to redistribute? Not really. So how important are those rights of those sublicensees? Do they have any commercial interest in doing so? Any other personal interest that is important to them, in a real sense, that an average person will recognise? That is called bad faith on your part and your rights to the copyrighted work are dissolved since you have acted in bad faith towards the agreement you have with the original rightsholder (who has stipulated that sublicensees may redistribute at will: a purpose you are attempting (and succeding at) frustrating). It does not matter what form these barriers take. Then the original authors (or rightsholders) must make a statement saying that they consider this use unwanted and that they want it to stop. No one else can say anything about this. They may have a fair case without much further ado. It would probably be considered that these rightsholders would do what is best. The question is also whether they would want that in the first place. If they have this case, which I feel they should have at least slightly, they might come in the position to negotiate the terms under which those patches are offered to others. I do feel they should have a say about that. But after all, you may not be that person. So considering that you may make the case (as the rightsholder) that the defendant's actions actually impedes the viability, the success, the reputation, the image, the whatever, of Linux, as a /real/ issue or interest, not something imagined or dreamt up (pardon the allusion) - then you have a case. I still hold as in the other email that you must have a real issue and a real case about real harm being done to interests of real parties. The original licensor has a claim against you, then, for copyright infringement. The sublicensees have tort claims such as tortious interference (with their quazi-contactual business relationship with the original licensor). The original licensor has the same such tort claim. That's all well but you must still show how this harms them. The only way around this is to argue that a patch to the linux kernel is not a derivative work. Which is a claim that some people make. Which is a claim you can make about any patches, often, usually. But this is why I wanted to reply here: I am not sure that the courts agree with the broader definition that the GPL (or FSF) has of the term "derivative work". This term is clearly in the terms, but it may not agree with copyright. According to GPL, the right to modify is only granted if the new work has the same license. The license only comes into play when you distribute it, but the terms /of/ the license make use of this broader term. Then, or thence, it follows, or might follow, that even the act of modification is not allowed, ceasing any possibility of legally distributing patches OF that work; regardless of whether those patches are GPL or not, and regardless of whether they are derivative works or not. Simply because your choice to not (intend to) distribute under GPL already violates the license when you modify it; except that the GPL FAQ does not agree with this, and modification and redistribution are actually different things. I don't know if it will ever pass that private modification is not allowed if intended with any (commercial, or redistributary) interest in advance; since the GPL specifically allows for it; and that the acts of modification and redistribution must be combined in essence as if to form some atomic operation that in itself, is a violation. I don't think this is common sense. I don't think you can take away the rights of modification just BECAUSE some person doing it intends to not distribute under GPL. Regardless, that is the only way in which the broader terms of the GPL /immediately/ apply to the patches without having to pass the (common copyright law) "derivative works" test. (Because you can apparently also make demands or claims on the limitation of modification, in the first place). In which case any "share alike" type license is essentially meaningless when it comes to software (as a patch can always be distributed rather than a complete work incorporating the original) In case you can automate the assembly of separately distributed components, yes. But this gives rise to the broader question of whose interests are at stake
Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from redistributing source code
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/censorship_linux_developer_steals_page_from_randi/ I also want to respond by saying that although everyone is falling over the Grsecurity developer, especially with relation to that reddit post you cite, and even though his responses might be petty and small-hearted, the actual issue in that post started with another developer saying: "yah." and "try reading the code next time". Which I consider wholly inappropriate as a means to talk to people in that sense and if his (Bradley Spengler's) responses are petty, they are only so in response to something else that was rather much of an insult in the first place. A rather "unavailable" insult perhaps, as people ignore it and only focus on what he does or has done in return to that. But this is unrelated to this matter; but may indeed shed a certain light on this person that I feel is unwarranted here. More to the point, if I may: I try to teach them that there is more to the law than their license but they won't listen. Mr. Concernedfossdev, you still need to state or decide what you want to be the consequence of your actions. In much the same way, as the excellent article you cited, makes the distinction between the technicalities that define the GPL FAQ (for instance) and what copyright law is actually about (substantial similarity, intended use, nature of the material, market impact) you will need to not just make technical statements and assumptions here (as related to how you feel copyright law should be put into effect) by also /WHY/ you want that. See, for instance "market impact" -- there is zero negative impact on the market potential and penetration and dominance of the patches on the linux kernel itself. If anything, it enhances the demand for it. The commercial use of GrSecurity may speak in favour of your argument. The nature of the material may not; because even though it is a creative work, it is also highly functional, and cannot be considered "the continuation of a story" in full effect. It could also be considered that the patches *could* be applied to any other given kernel as well; although this is not the case, there is similarity between this and e.g. the nVidia patches. So you need to also make the argument that that module is a derivative work. This needs to be less strong, because the patches actually do change the core kernel. Yet, the patches clearly constitute a substantial creative work by themselves, and do not actually incorporate, in that sense, the original product. Then you must probably answer "why"? - do you seek to obtain free access to the code or the product? - are you just protecting people's rights? (Not Convincing). - are your personal interests being harmed because you have a bigger claim to those patches, than the person has to his exclusivity on them? I don't think that will easily pass. I think the courts will look at interests being harmed in the first place. In all of the other court examples stated in that article (and also on Wikipedia) there was a clear battle of interests, of commercial interests, and of financial interests. In this case, it is lacking. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think all lawyers are so great either. I am pretty sure, though, that the courts are going to weigh interests against each other, since that is what copyright is about. And you will have to decisively show that the benefits of gaining access to that code (for anyone) outweigh the current commercial interests of that company, as well as a business model for which there is no alternative (which could be up for debate). See to my belief courts usually weigh actual people interests, and the reason why no one other than the actual parties involved, can go to court about it. So you must also explain what will be the consequences if your actions succeed. And this I really would ask of you here as well. Have you considered what would actually happen? - would that person go out of business? - would he have to stop working on this? - would "the community" actually claim "ownership" and try to develop it of its own? What about the substantial copyright the author has on his own work? I mean, would you actually consider real people interests? I do believe, perhaps, that if you can show that this person is exorbitantly profiting, this will weigh against the statement or argument that he has a 'fair use' of the code, but at the same time you still need to show that he requires copyright permission to even do this work. As a first party (the linux kernel copyright holders) you must show that you are being harmed in your interests in any substantial degree. This is clearly up for debate. And the actual consequence would be that no one can actually develop anything proprietary ever, which excludes most if not all business models based on the ownership of a certain work, or any right to it. A
Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from redistributing source code
concernedfoss...@teknik.io schreef op 01-06-2016 16:15: He has frustrated the purpose of the agreement (the grant) he had with the original licensor, and thus the grant fails. In other words: he has violated the license. So what do you want? For him to go out of business? Do you want free access to his work? Which is it? -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from redistributing source code
> Elsewhere it has been said that support cost $200, but perhaps that has > changed. It appears the sum has ballooned to seventeen thousand dollars per year now: --- https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/censorship_linux_developer_steals_page_from_randi/ "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 --- http://pastebin.ca/3614117 June 1 2016 2:52 PM, "Neal McBurnett" wrote: > I agree with RMS that it sounds like this is a GPL violation. That also seems > to agree with what > you quoted from bkuhn (Brad Kuhn, president of Software Freedom Conservancy), > who simply noted that > we needed more details and the complaint has to be originitated by someone > who does have the code > and wants to distribute it. That's quite different from your characterization > of the SFC response. > > And I agree that this is quite different from what Red Hat does, since they > do distribute their > patches. They protect their brand via trademark, which is appropriate. > > Someone who wants to open up GRsecurity patches could buy commercial support: > https://grsecurity.net/business_support.php Elsewhere it has been said that > support cost $200, but > perhaps that has changed. > > Thanks for noting this, and I hope we find someone who can actually make this > happen, or file a > legal case. > > Neal McBurnett http://neal.mcburnett.org > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 02:37:51PM +, concernedfoss...@teknik.io wrote: > >> Here is RMS' response: >> >> 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. >> >> -- >> 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. > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 02:15:46PM +, concernedfoss...@teknik.io wrote: > >> There is an important distinguishing feature: RedHat itself does release its >> sourcecode, albit as >> huge code patches rather than the little ones that are desired, but that >> makes the issue moot even >> before it would go to court. >> >> That is an important distinction, so these situations are not the same. >> >> Here the source is not released by Spengler to the public, >> the stable patches do differ substantially from the "testing" patches >> (one feature is 5 times bigger in the closed stable patch), and >> sublicensees are threatened to not distribute. >> >> Now some people are arguing that kernel patches are not derivative works; >> which would make the entire GPL even MORE worthless than it already has >> shown to be in practice. >> https://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/derivative.html >> >> And the SFConservancy doesn't seem to give a damn, >> and #fsf and #gnu all scream to the high heavens that what spengler is doing >> is just fine and >> they seem to totally support him in it. >> >> I try to teach them that there is more to the law than their license but >> they won't listen. >> >> >> There is a legal term for this. It's called acting in bad faith. >> That often gets your contract nullified. >> Here there is a license grant. Spengler is acting in bad faith to frustrate >> its purpose. >> It does not matter if he is breaking legs, threatening to expose secrets, or >> threatining to raise >> prices to exorbidant rates, or to cease sending the patches: >> What matters is that his goal is to deny the sublicensee the right given to >> the sublicensee by the >> original licensor, and that he has obtained that goal via his actions (the >> threats here). >> >> He has frustrated the purpose of the agreement (the grant) he had with the >> original licensor, and >> thus >> the grant fails. In other words: he has violated the license. >> >> June 1 2016 2:02 PM, "Jonathan Corbet" wrote: >>> On Tue, 31 May 2016 18:47:38 + >>> concernedfoss...@teknik.io wrote: >>> Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) part, with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has with the original licensor? >>> >>> Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be that way. This is essentially the >>> Red Hat approach, and that has generally been deemed to be acceptable over >>> the years. >>> >>> jon >>> -- >>> Jonathan Corb
Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from redistributing source code
I agree with RMS that it sounds like this is a GPL violation. That also seems to agree with what you quoted from bkuhn (Brad Kuhn, president of Software Freedom Conservancy), who simply noted that we needed more details and the complaint has to be originitated by someone who does have the code and wants to distribute it. That's quite different from your characterization of the SFC response. And I agree that this is quite different from what Red Hat does, since they do distribute their patches. They protect their brand via trademark, which is appropriate. Someone who wants to open up GRsecurity patches could buy commercial support: https://grsecurity.net/business_support.php Elsewhere it has been said that support cost $200, but perhaps that has changed. Thanks for noting this, and I hope we find someone who can actually make this happen, or file a legal case. Neal McBurnett http://neal.mcburnett.org/ On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 02:37:51PM +, concernedfoss...@teknik.io wrote: > Here is RMS' response: > > 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. > > -- > 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. On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 02:15:46PM +, concernedfoss...@teknik.io wrote: > There is an important distinguishing feature: RedHat itself does release its > sourcecode, albit as huge code patches rather than the little ones that are > desired, but that makes the issue moot even before it would go to court. > > That is an important distinction, so these situations are not the same. > > Here the source is not released by Spengler to the public, > the stable patches do differ substantially from the "testing" patches > (one feature is 5 times bigger in the closed stable patch), and > sublicensees are threatened to not distribute. > > Now some people are arguing that kernel patches are not derivative works; > which would make the entire GPL even MORE worthless than it already has shown > to be in practice. > https://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/derivative.html > > And the SFConservancy doesn't seem to give a damn, > and #fsf and #gnu all scream to the high heavens that what spengler is doing > is just fine and > they seem to totally support him in it. > > I try to teach them that there is more to the law than their license but they > won't listen. > > > There is a legal term for this. It's called acting in bad faith. > That often gets your contract nullified. > Here there is a license grant. Spengler is acting in bad faith to frustrate > its purpose. > It does not matter if he is breaking legs, threatening to expose secrets, or > threatining to raise prices to exorbidant rates, or to cease sending the > patches: > What matters is that his goal is to deny the sublicensee the right given to > the sublicensee by the original licensor, and that he has obtained that goal > via his actions (the threats here). > > He has frustrated the purpose of the agreement (the grant) he had with the > original licensor, and thus > the grant fails. In other words: he has violated the license. > > > June 1 2016 2:02 PM, "Jonathan Corbet" wrote: > > On Tue, 31 May 2016 18:47:38 + > > concernedfoss...@teknik.io wrote: > > > >> Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) part, > >> with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has with the > >> original licensor? > > > > Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be that way. This is essentially the > > Red Hat approach, and that has generally been deemed to be acceptable over > > the years. > > > > jon > > -- > > Jonathan Corbet / LWN.net / cor...@lwn.net -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code. --RMS' response
Here is RMS' response: 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. -- 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. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from redistributing source code
There is an important distinguishing feature: RedHat itself does release its sourcecode, albit as huge code patches rather than the little ones that are desired, but that makes the issue moot even before it would go to court. That is an important distinction, so these situations are not the same. Here the source is not released by Spengler to the public, the stable patches do differ substantially from the "testing" patches (one feature is 5 times bigger in the closed stable patch), and sublicensees are threatened to not distribute. Now some people are arguing that kernel patches are not derivative works; which would make the entire GPL even MORE worthless than it already has shown to be in practice. https://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/derivative.html And the SFConservancy doesn't seem to give a damn, and #fsf and #gnu all scream to the high heavens that what spengler is doing is just fine and they seem to totally support him in it. I try to teach them that there is more to the law than their license but they won't listen. There is a legal term for this. It's called acting in bad faith. That often gets your contract nullified. Here there is a license grant. Spengler is acting in bad faith to frustrate its purpose. It does not matter if he is breaking legs, threatening to expose secrets, or threatining to raise prices to exorbidant rates, or to cease sending the patches: What matters is that his goal is to deny the sublicensee the right given to the sublicensee by the original licensor, and that he has obtained that goal via his actions (the threats here). He has frustrated the purpose of the agreement (the grant) he had with the original licensor, and thus the grant fails. In other words: he has violated the license. June 1 2016 2:02 PM, "Jonathan Corbet" wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2016 18:47:38 + > concernedfoss...@teknik.io wrote: > >> Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) part, >> with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has with the >> original licensor? > > Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be that way. This is essentially the > Red Hat approach, and that has generally been deemed to be acceptable over > the years. > > jon > -- > Jonathan Corbet / LWN.net / cor...@lwn.net -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
I contacted them, they didn't seem to give a damn. I went to the channel and sent emails. No response to the emails, the channel log was as follows (essentially: we have no money, and anyone can treat the GPL as the BSD license, it's all good in the end and if anyone doesn't like it they can bring the tort claims, we wont help) Opensource has no teeth. Some people claim that patches to the kernel aren't derivative works. This has never been tested in court either way specifically for code patches. Perhaps you and others could contact the SFC, I don't even know if my mails get through to them. Chat log: -30 gnu_user http://pastebin.ca/3614117 -39 kfogel gnu_user: I am not a lawyer, and I don't represent the Conservancy, but this does sound disturbing. It is not a new situation even back in the 1990s, there were cases where some companies attempted to sign private contracts with customers whereby the customers agreed to give up some of their rights under the GPLv2, as a condition of receiving patches under the GPLv2. My memory is that the FSF determined this to be a violation of the GPL (on the patch -39 kfogel supplier's part), but I am not positive of that, nor do I remember the specific parties involved. However, the case was very similar to what you are describing with grsecurity. -42 kfogel gnu_user: It is *quite* likely, by the way, that grsecurity is delivering slightly different patches (you know, whitespace differences or trivial variable name differences, that sort of thing) to different customers, in order to be able to identify who leaks a patch in violation of the contract. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street for maps, but on a per-customer basis.) -43 kfogel gnu_user: I'm pointing this out because some customer might be tempted to leak anonymously. They should be aware that they are probably identifiable, unless they try to scrub the diff in some way (might be hard). If you can get multiple customers to privately compare their patches, you can determine if grsecurity is using this technique. -45 kfogel gnu_user: bkuhn knows a lot about GPL compliance; I hope he reads the above and can recommend and/or take some action. -45 gnu_user kfogel: I hope so too. -45 vmbrasseur IIRC, bkuhn may be in transit right now. -45 gnu_user kfogel: this situation is not new to the law -45 gnu_user companies do this all the time against one another and are brought to court for tort violations -46 gnu_user the difference here is that they all have direct privity with eachother -46 gnu_user here the linux rightsholder does not have direct privity with the sublicensor that is prevented from redistirbuting -47 gnu_user thus a quazi-contractual argument might have to be made -47 kfogel gnu_user: Ah, sounds like you know much more about the history & context than I do anyway, good. Thanks for pointing this one out I'm very curious to see what happensW! -48 gnu_user the remedy would likely be in equity thusly (since quazi-contract etc) -50 -!- JordiGH [jordi] has joined #conservancy -51 -!- kfogel [~Karl] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] -52 -!- kfogel [~Karl] has joined #conservancy -04 @bkuhn gnu_user: I'm familiar with the public discussion about the grsecurity situation. If a customer thinks they have a tort claim of some sort under GPL in a situation like this, they should certainly bring it on their own. -05 @bkuhn Whether it's a GPL violation depends on various details that I'm not privy to. Redistribution is not mandatory under GPL, so there would have to be some sort of specific GPLv2 Secition 6/7 problem shown. -05 JordiGH Funding cuts have also tightened the conference travel budget, eh? -05 @bkuhn JordiGH: huh? -05 JordiGH Sorry, I thought you said you weren't at Pycon this year. -06 @bkuhn JordiGH: if you are asking about PyCon, my talk wasn't accepted. -06 JordiGH What was your proposal? Did you get any attention at all? Last time I submitted a talk, I'm sure nobody even looked at the proposal beyond the title. -06 @bkuhn JordiGH: I forget, anyway I was asked to keynote another conference elsewhere in the world tomorrow, so I am there now. -07 JordiGH Oh! Neat! Where? -07 @bkuhn JordiGH: http://oss2016.org/speakers -08 JordiGH Finland! -08 @bkuhn gnu_user: showing a GPLv2 Section 6 or 7 problem often require seeing what written agreements people have with the party. If someone has specifics, they can certainly report the violation officially to complia...@sfconservancy.org June 1 2016 9:13 AM, "Sam Bull" wrote: > As somebody previously mentioned the first time you posted this, I'm > not sure why this is relevant to Ubuntu development? > > Perhaps you should get in touch with the Software Freedom Conservancy, > and see if there is anything they can do. https://sfconservancy.org > > On Tue, 2016-05
Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code.
You are not permitted to erect barriers in the way of sublicencees making use of their right to redistribute, a right that is granted by the original rights-holder. That is called bad faith on your part and your rights to the copyrighted work are dissolved since you have acted in bad faith towards the agreement you have with the original rightsholder (who has stipulated that sublicensees may redistribute at will: a purpose you are attempting (and succeding at) frustrating). It does not matter what form these barriers take. The original licensor has a claim against you, then, for copyright infringement. The sublicensees have tort claims such as tortious interference (with their quazi-contactual business relationship with the original licensor). The original licensor has the same such tort claim. The only way around this is to argue that a patch to the linux kernel is not a derivative work. Which is a claim that some people make. In which case any "share alike" type license is essentially meaningless when it comes to software (as a patch can always be distributed rather than a complete work incorporating the original) The only way Spengler gets away with this, if he is sued, is if he convinces the court that a patch describing all the changes he made to the linux kernel is not a derivative work. June 1 2016 8:31 AM, "Xen" wrote: > concernedfoss...@teknik.io schreef op 31-05-2016 5:19: > >> 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)). > > Apparently they can choose whom to distribute to in the first place; GPL > does not require that you distribute to anyone, only that you must make > corresponding source available when you do. > > So even though you may have the source (and binaries, I guess) and you > have the rights under copyright to distribute it further, /as per the > copyright license/ that only applies to something that has already been > distributed to you. It says nothing about the requirement for the > original distributor (in this case grsecurity) to keep distributing to > you after. > > I would say the GPL is not really completely in line with personal and > real interests, so it might not be weird to consider that commercial > vendors would have an issue with it. > > Still this person is not violating GPL. He may be petty but many > developers are (and I am too). Regardless, it seems this is his "next > best" solution to place an effective copyright restriction without using > copyright for it. > > You cannot have rights to source code you never obtained, after all. > People will do this thing as long as proprietariness is illegal, and you > can't change humans either to put a stop to that. > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
As somebody previously mentioned the first time you posted this, I'm not sure why this is relevant to Ubuntu development? Perhaps you should get in touch with the Software Freedom Conservancy, and see if there is anything they can do. https://sfconservancy.org/ On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 03:12 +, concernedfoss...@teknik.io wrote: > 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_li > nux_developer_steals_page_from_randi/ > "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_rese > arch_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 > > > > Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) > part, with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has > with the original licensor? > > > > (Also Note: the stable branch now contains features that will never > make it to the "testing" branch, and are not allowed to be > redistributed, per the scheme mentioned above (which has been > successful: not one version of the stable branch has been released by > anyone, even those asked to do so, since the scheme has been put in > place (they say they cannot as they cannot lose access to the patch > as that may cost the lives and freedom of activists in latin > america))) > https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/726101158561882112 > @xoreipeip @grsecurity they call it a "demo" version "20:14 < > spender> what's in the public version is < 1/5th the size of the full > version" > oreipeip @grsecurity "20:21 < spender> also it wouldn't be as fast as > the commercial version [...] there are missing optimization passes" > > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code.
concernedfoss...@teknik.io schreef op 31-05-2016 5:19: 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)). Apparently they can choose whom to distribute to in the first place; GPL does not require that you distribute to anyone, only that you must make corresponding source available when you do. So even though you may have the source (and binaries, I guess) and you have the rights under copyright to distribute it further, /as per the copyright license/ that only applies to something that has already been distributed to you. It says nothing about the requirement for the original distributor (in this case grsecurity) to keep distributing to you after. I would say the GPL is not really completely in line with personal and real interests, so it might not be weird to consider that commercial vendors would have an issue with it. Still this person is not violating GPL. He may be petty but many developers are (and I am too). Regardless, it seems this is his "next best" solution to place an effective copyright restriction without using copyright for it. You cannot have rights to source code you never obtained, after all. People will do this thing as long as proprietariness is illegal, and you can't change humans either to put a stop to that. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
plasma-desktop packages breaks kde-l10n-xx language packages...
Kubuntu 16.10 - plasma 5.6.4 plasma-desktop packages breaks kde-l10n-xx language packages... i need plasma-desktop or else plasma doesn't start is there a work-arround..?? (see kde bug report #363642) thank you ... ___ La Ventura (heavy metal band) Tumblr page: http://laventurafan.tumblr.com My Twitter Page: http://twitter.com/OpenSimFan My Facebook page (be my friend, please ) http://www.facebook.com/andre.verwijs My Google+ page (follow me please ) André Verwijs - Google+ https://plus.google.com/111310545842863442992 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
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_randi/ "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 Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) part, with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has with the original licensor? (Also Note: the stable branch now contains features that will never make it to the "testing" branch, and are not allowed to be redistributed, per the scheme mentioned above (which has been successful: not one version of the stable branch has been released by anyone, even those asked to do so, since the scheme has been put in place (they say they cannot as they cannot lose access to the patch as that may cost the lives and freedom of activists in latin america))) https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/726101158561882112 @xoreipeip @grsecurity they call it a "demo" version "20:14 < spender> what's in the public version is < 1/5th the size of the full version" oreipeip @grsecurity "20:21 < spender> also it wouldn't be as fast as the commercial version [...] there are missing optimization passes" -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
