linux-kernel - Re: GRSec is vital to Linux security -- SFConservancy = legal malpractice. Use own lawyer.

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: <755ebf4887176797356a1e0b73df64c6@redchan.it>
Date:   Thu, 24 Jan 2019 16:31:08 +0000
From:   linuxgpletc@...chan.it
To:     "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>
Cc:     Ivan Ivanov <qmastery16@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        gentoo-user@...ts.gentoo.org, freebsd-chat@...ebsd.org,
        misc@...nbsd.org, rms@....org
Subject: Re: GRSec is vital to Linux security -- SFConservancy = legal
 malpractice. Use own lawyer.

One note: If you are going to defend your copyrights and the idea of the 
GPL, do not rely on the "free software legal groups".

The "free software legal groups" exist only to commit legal malpractice.

The guy who ran the SFConservancy (Bradly Kuhn IIRC)  isn't even a 
lawyer. He advises "clients" to wait it out: AKA run down the 
statute-of-limitations so you have no case.

A fucking _FAGGOT_.

You cannot rely on the "Free software legal groups" to help you because 
_they do not exist_.

Only recently did the SFConservancy hire a lawyer, and they had to put 
her in the head position because Bar rules do not allow a lawyer to be 
below non-lawyers in a legal firm.

Just wanted to let you know.