If Mr Spengler would like to market a non-re-distributable hardened
kernel, he can write his own kernel from scratch. Currently he is
marketing a non-redistributable derivative work of the Linux Kernel. He
prevents customers of his from redistributing the derivative work by
threatening a non-renewal of whatever contract exists between his
company and the customers. This scheme has been successful. That is
certainly the imposition of an additional term, which the Linux
licensing terms forbid, when he imposed that additional term on his
clients he violated the licensing terms and has no right to even modify
the linux kernel from that point forward.
On 2017-06-15 15:53, Casey Schaufler wrote:
On 6/15/2017 8:34 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?
Email lists are never* the correct mechanism for the resolution
of legal issues. If someone from these email lists is working
to address a legal issue you are extremely unlikely to see any
evidence of it on an email list.
---
* I am not a lawyer. Do not construe this as legal advice.
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) )
--
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
