[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f2f8761cb462b2576696c500cc57e257@firemail.cc>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 17:56:32 +0000
From: nipponmail@...email.cc
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of
GCC and the linux kernel)?
You are incorrect. GPL version 2 section 6 states that one shall not add
additional restrictions between the agreement between the licensee and
further licensees. It governs that relationship vis-a-vis the protected
Work.
GrSecurity has, indeed, stipulated an additional restrictive term.
From: You may distribute derivative works freely.
GrSecurity has forced customers to agree to: We shall not distribute the
(non-separable) derivative work EXCEPT to our own customers (when
required).
That is clearly an additional restrictive term.
Yes, I am a lawyer. A court would not be "tricked" by GrSecurity putting
it's additional restrictive term in a separate writing. The license is
instructions about what you are allowed to do with Copyright Holder's
work; He EXPLICITLY forbade additional restrictive terms.
GrSecurity does not have a pre-existing legal right to create
non-separable derivative works at all. The default rights are: nothing
(all rights reservered).
On 2019-11-04 17:36, ams@....org wrote:
> One is not under obligation to guarantee that new versions are
> distributed to someone, which also means obligations can be terminated
> for any reason. So while grsecurity might not be doing the morally
> and ethically right thing, I do not think they are violating the GNU
> GPL. You're still free to redistribute the patches, but grsecurity
> isn't under obligation to give you future updates.
>
> Their agreement text is located at
> https://grsecurity.net/agree/agreement_faq
Powered by blists - more mailing lists