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?

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: <44c771ce46eb514b3db4e93cf9efe362@airmail.cc>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:25:32 +0000
From:   aconcernedfossdev@...mail.cc
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: 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) )