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

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

Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1707292253110.3788@qynat-yncgbc>
Date:   Sat, 29 Jul 2017 22:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Lang <david@...g.hm>
To:     "Paul G. Allen" <pgallen@...il.com>
cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017, Paul G. Allen wrote:

>> It's not even clear that there is infringement.  The GPL merely
>> requires that people who have been distributed copies of GPL'ed code
>> must not be restricted from further redistribution of the code.  It
>> does not require that that someone who is distributing it must
>> available on a public FTP/HTTP server.

what I have seen reported is that they are adding additional restrictions, that 
if any of their customers redistribute the source, their contract with 
grsecurity is terminated.

> If there is something to this (that GRSecurity is somehow in violation
> of the GPL), then it would probably be a very good idea for someone
> (the community, Red Hat, etc.) to protect the kernel. From my
> understanding, at least in America, protections under any license or
> contract (especially dealing with copyright and trademark
> infringement) are only enforceable as long as the party with the
> rights enforce the license/contract/agreement.

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.

> There is also something in law called "setting a precedent" and if the
> violating of the Linux license agreement is left unchecked, then quite
> possibly a precedent could be set to allow an entire upstream kernel
> to be co-opted.

This is a potential problem.

David Lang