linux-kernel - Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler 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: <b46fc041cead660bd0ac21cc2577e783@airmail.cc>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:33:46 +0000
From:   aconcernedfossdev@...mail.cc
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is
 blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

 From a legal standpoint the pulling of the public patches is 
significant.

Before then there was a cause of action due to the imposition of an 
additional term, but
since the rights-holders could still access the derivative work it may 
have been a moot point to them.

Now that additional no-redistribution term imposition DOES affect the 
rights-holders.

Big development.

On 2017-06-15 16:25, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:50:45 +0200, Liam Proven wrote:
>> Meanwhile, please keep your anonymous ad-hom attacks off support or
>> development mailing lists. They are not welcome here.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> they are less appropiate on users mailing list that aren't for general
> discussions, so theoretically the better place would be Ubuntu
> devel discuss.
>       ^^^^^^^
> 
>> On 2017-06-15 15:43, Greg KH wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> The above reply says it all.
> 
> The discontinued GRSecurity issue isn't new, for example take a look at
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2017-April/043604.html 
> .
> New to me is just somebody complaining about a possible legal issue.
> 
> IIRC on Ubuntu AppArmor is the default, it's a MAC implementation.
> 
> I neither know if AppArmor or something similar could be considered a
> replacement for GRSecurity, nor if there is a legal issue with
> discontinuing GRSecurity for free, but I didn't heard of a legal issue
> before.
> 
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:34:06 +0000, aconcernedfossdev@...mail.cc wrote:
>> Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly
>> violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?
> 
> I don't care at all about GRSecurity, so why should I care about a
> possible and very unlikely legal issue? I suspect that if there would 
> be
> a legal issue, there already would have been many concerns on other
> mailing lists. I didn't notice such concerns.
> 
> Cross-posting, top posting and the tone of voice are not as good as
> providing links to serious concerns.
> 
> Regards,
> Ralf