linux-kernel - Bradly Spengler interview (GRSecurity) (Blatant GPL violators vs GCC and Linux Kernel)

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Sun, 09 Aug 2020 03:10:02 +0000
From:   nipponmail@...email.cc
To:     bruce@...ens.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, esr@...rsus.com, moglen@...umbia.edu,
        blukashev@...pervictus.com, tcallawa@...hat.com, editor@....net,
        skraw.ml@...net.com, torvalds@...l.org, rms@....org
Subject: Bradly Spengler interview (GRSecurity) (Blatant GPL violators vs GCC
 and Linux Kernel)

Thought you might be interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv3a2tzUTn4

GRSecurity violates both the Linux kernel's copyright and the GCC 
copyright by forbidding redistribution of the patches (in their Access 
Agreement): which are non-seperable derivative works of the kernel and 
(in the case of the GCC plugins) GCC. Yes: threatening consequences if a 
licensee redistributes is a restraint on the "rights" given by the 
original copyright owners. Those "plugins" he is talking about as-well 
as the kernel patch violate the GPLv2. The GPLv2 _FORBIDS_ adding 
additional clauses not-within the GPL between the derivative-licensee 
and the down-the-line licensee. Bradly Spengler / OpenSourceSecurity are 
violating this stipulation, blatantly, in writing. They are also 
violating the "no additional restrictions" stipulation in the GPLv2. 
They ARE violating the Linux and the GCC copyright.