Also Brad Spengler has been threatening legal action against an openwall
developer back-porting features of Brad's wholly, non-standalone,
derivative work.
He also calls GRSecurity an "Original Work", which it is not (see the
Anime Subs cases for the court's opinion) (GRSecurity is such a
non-standalone derivative work, so the Linux Licensing terms absolutely
do apply (it's a patch that snakes through the whole of the Linux Kernel
source tree, touching everything like a vine).
Here's a quick rundown:
-------------------------------------
GRSecurity goes full commercial, no more free testing patches, threatens
programmer trying to port.
(*1) https://lwn.net/Articles/723169/
(*2)
https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/software/general-linux-open-source/948623-grsecurity-kernel-patches-will-no-longer-be-free-to-the-public?page=1
(*3)
https://www.embedded-linux.de/18-news/886-grsecurity-nicht-mehr-kostenlos-verfuegbar
(*4)
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/grsecurity_linux_kernel_freeloaders/
GRSecurity removes public testing patch - goes full commercial.
(*5) http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/06/04/24
"Don't worry about it, there's nothing for a "grateful" user like
yourself
to download anymore. Boy, if I had more "grateful" users like yourself
obsessed with harrassing us on Twitter, Reddit, and IRC so that they
can go around and paint themselves as some kind of victim, I wouldn't
know what to do with myself.
-Brad"
Brad Spengler prevents a private purchaser from redistributing the
sourcecode via contract clauses between him and they: thus willfully
frustrating the purpose of the license HE was granted by the linux
kernel rightsholders. This is another reason a court may find him in
violation of the license grant of the GPL. As we discussed previously.
(See: ****)
Also Brad Spengler threatens others with lawsuit in a nearly transparent
attempt to get them to stop porting over the work:
" This stops *now* or I'm sending lawyers after you and
(*6) http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/06/03/14
Guys, this is your *last warning*. This stops *now* or I'm sending
lawyers
after you and the companies paying you to plagiarize our work and
violate
our *registered* copyright (which for the record entitles us to
punitive
damages which now are very easily provable). It's time to get serious
about attribution -- what you are doing is completely unacceptable.
I'm
already in contact with lawyers to prepare for the next time this
happens.
If any of this plagiarized and misattributed code actually made it into
the Linux kernel, you'd all be in a world of pain.
Here Brad Spengler threatens a copyright infringement lawsuit regarding
his non-original wholly-derivative work.
(An original work stands alone). This while he threatens those paying
customers who might redistribute the work (see: **** below).
Note: Copyright licenses (like any license to use the property of
another (copyright is freely alienable in the same way real property
is)) are freely revocable unless barred by estoppel. The GPL v2 lacks a
no-revocation clause thus estoppel would be more difficult to argue
(additonally none of the "agreeing parties" have ever met each other).
Note2: GrSecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel, it is
non-seperable: it wholly relies on the linux kernel source code to work.
Courts in both the US and Germany have reaffirmed that if a work based
on another work cannot stand alone it is clearly a derivative work.
(See the Anime Subtitles case from a few years ago) (See page 6 of the
phoronix discussion at *2 for a review)
Note3:The linux kernel is not under joint copyright, it is simply a
collection of derivative work upon derivative work.
A simple solution is for one or many of the rightsholders to the code
GRSecurity is derived from/ modifies to rescind Brad Spengler's license
to use or modify their code.
Additionally copyright violation claims can be filed as Brad Spengler
has reportedly attempted to frustrate the purpose of the agreement that
allows him to modify the linux kernel in the first place; placing
additional restrictions to prevent redistribution of the sourcecode (a
court would not be fooled by such a scheme).
(Addionally there were third parties who contributed to the GRSecurity
code base when it was publically distributed.)
Other snippets from (*5) include Mr Spengler's unhappiness with the
publication of his scheme and RMS's opinion of it:
... It has been nearly 4 months now and despite repeated follow-ups, I
still
haven't received anything back more than an automated reply. Likewise
regarding some supposed claims by RMS which were published last year by
internet troll mikeeusa -- I have been trying since June 3rd of last
year to get any response from him, but have been unable to. So when you
...
RMS' opinion can be seen here:
(*7) https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/06/msg00020.html
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.
(****)
GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under
version 2 the GPL to redistribute
(by threatening them with a non-renewal of a contract to recive this
patch to the linux kernel.)
(GRsecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel (it is a patch))
People who have dealt with them have attested to this fact:
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/censorship_linux_developer_steals_page_from_
andi
"You will also lose the access to the patches in the form of grsec not
renewing the contract.
Also they've asked us (a Russian hosting company) for $17000+ a year for
access their stable
patches. $17k is quite a lot for us. A question about negotiating a
lower price was completely
ignored. Twice." -- fbt2lurker
And it is suggested to be the case here aswell:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4gxdlh/after_15_years_of_research_grsecuritys_rap_is_here
"Do you work for some company that pays for Grsecurity? If so then would
you kindly excersise the
rights given to you by GPL and send me a tarball of all the latest
patches and releases?" --
lolidaisuki
"sadly (for this case) no, i work in a human rights organization where
we get the patches by a
friendly and richer 3rd party of the same field. we made the compromise
to that 3rd party to not
distribute the patches outside and as we deal with some critical
situations i cannot afford to
compromise that even for the sake of gpl :/
the "dumber" version for unstable patches will make a big problem for
several projects, i would
keep an eye on them. this situation cannot be hold for a long time" --
disturbio
On 2017-06-15 15:51, aconcernedfoss...@airmail.cc wrote:
It's an obvious blatant violation. He is not allowed to add additional
terms, but being a "clever" programmer it seems that he has decided
that because the additional term that he (and seemingly PaxTeam) has
imposed is not written within the four corners of license grant
document but instead is communicated in some other way that
"""""doesn't make it an additional term""""" and he has """"cleverly
circumvented the linux copyright terms"""", which obviously is not the
case but other random programmers will argue and swear it's fine till
hell freezes over and get very angry when someone with a legal
background informs them otherwise.
I think many people are not aware of the violation because it's only
been a month since GRSecurity pulled the sourcecode: it was almost a
moot point before then with no real damage. Such is no-longer the
case.
On 2017-06-15 15:43, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000, 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.
If you feel that what they are doing is somehow violating your
copyright
on the Linux kernel, then you have the right to take legal action if
you
so desire. To tell others what to do, however, is not something that
usually gets you very far in the world.
Best of luck!
greg k-h
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
