linux-kernel - Re: Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 30 Jul 2017 02:14:15 -0500
From:   "David C. Rankin" <drankinatty@...denlinkmail.com>
To:     kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity

On 07/30/2017 12:55 AM, David Lang wrote:
> You are thinking of Trademarks, they must be defended or you loose them.
> Contracts and Licenses do not need to be defended at every chance or risk
> loosing them.

No, not always, it can apply in plain contract as well. The defenses that
could be later raised by grsecurity if this issue goes unaddressed is are (1)
latches; and (2) waiver. It is a slippery slope. While, without commenting on
the dubious nature of the current use of the defenses (as catch-all,
kitchen-sink affirmative-defenses), they can be expected to be raised if
rights under GPL to insure no further restrictions are placed on subsequent
use of the kernel-code are not enforced.

I hope there is a centralized forum that will be established for this issue
(there may be and I'm just not smart enough to have found it yet). Certainly,
if for nothing else, so the advantages and disadvantages of both action, and
inaction, can be peer-reviewed on both the legal and technical side.

-- 
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.