linux-kernel - GRSecurity, RMS, discussion excerpts

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]

Message-ID: <762a6474aa9d2690b29932670e512a6d@mail.teknik.io>
Date:	Tue, 07 Jun 2016 07:39:31 +0000
From:	concernedfossdev@...nik.io
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, debian-user@...ts.debian.org
Subject: GRSecurity, RMS, discussion excerpts

>From soylentnews:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?threshold=-1&highlightthresh=-1&mode=improvedthreaded&commentsort=5&op=Change&sid=13849#post_comment
>Re:Playing lawyer (Score:2)
>by darkfeline (1030) on Sunday >June 05, @06:30AM (#355471) >Homepage
>
>But you didn't even address my argument. In fact, your long tirade affirms half of my argument.
>
>GRsec didn't violate the terms of the GPL license. The GPL license requires them to distribute their source code to their clients under the GPL license, which they do.
>
>The GPL does not require one to continue doing business with one's clients. If that were true, for example, Google would be legally bound to keep doing business with all Android vendors perpetually. GRsec is perfectly free to stop doing business with anyone who redistributes their GPL licensed source code.

------------------ 

Keep telling yourself that.

You are not studied in the law. Accept this.

You don't have the slightest clue how the law of agreements works (AKA: contracts etc)
which is why you say "you haven't addressed my point!"
I have. You are just too ignorant to realize that.

Similar to how most western peoples are too ignorant to realize men should be free to take as brides cute young girls, as once they were prior to feminism.

The fact of the matter is that GRSecurity is using the threat of an action or inaction to prevent sublicensees from enacting a privilege they have been given by the _original_ licensor to who's terms GRSecurity agreed, and to who's terms are the only thing _allowing_ GRSecurity to modify the kernel source code to create the derivative work and distribute it in the first place.

Obviously once you frustrate that agreement you lose your privileges under it. This is a basic point of the law of agreements. 

You cannot say "I get what I want, but fk the rest of your terms", even if you are "clever" about it.
The linux licensors said that any distributed derivative work shall be freely re-distributable.
When you come to that license and think to yourself "haha, I shall circumnavagate that clause and cause my derivative work to NOT be redistributable in the real world" you have committed bad faith vis-a-vis the agreement and the court will not, when the licensor sues you for copyright infringement, recognize the clauses that would protect you (they will give them no effect, that is your reward for making sure that other clauses (redistribution) would be ineffectual).

The linux licensors want to eventually have changes "come back" to them. They adopted the GPL for this purpose. You frustrate the use of one term, you cannot hide behind another.

Very simple, I don't understand why you don't get this, they teach this in the first month or two.