Nice vally-girl yawn.
Because you are not interested in legal matters vis a vis GRSecurity, no
one should be and the discussion should be censored
You're a real piece of work, you know.
A real piece of work.
So I ask the question again: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of
GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to
the Linux Kernel?
Why does no one care that Brad Spengler (seemingly aswell as PaxTeam) of
GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to
the Linux Kernel?
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**:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYnhI3wUej8
(A Boat Sails Away 2016 17) )
On 2017-06-15 16:05, J wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, W Stacy Lockwood
<vladina...@gmail.com> wrote:
Did you not see Liam's reply, or do you just want to add nothing but
noise
to this list?
Given the repeated spamming the list, the cross posting, and replying
on this list to response external to this list (oh the joys of
crossposting), can we just chuck this account into a moderation bin
and let him/her rant into a bit bucket?
I'm on both the Ubuntu lists, so I'm getting these double... yes, I
can filter this myself, but that doesn't help the larger group...
On Jun 15, 2017 10:51, <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-users mailing list
ubuntu-us...@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-us...@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
--
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
