linux-kernel - Why won't you sue? (Open Source Security)

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: <1fefac65c620c624e1a5d59c3780655d@waifu.club>
Date:   Sun, 23 Feb 2020 09:06:50 +0000
From:   whywontyousue@...fu.club
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Why won't you sue? (Open Source Security)

Why won't you sue Open Source Security? They are violating your 
Copyright.

> 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.

You see this. Do you? It means that if some entity distributes the Work, 
or modifys the Work, or sublicenses the Work alongside ANY terms not 
within
the license text: their license is terminated.

So if someone decides to modify and distibute a non-seperable derivative 
Work,
subject to your copyright; thus subject to your terms: and if they do so
alongside ANY terms not within the license text: you have a cause of 
action.

Do you understand this?

Let's move on.

> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

Do you see this? This text means that if someone constructively 
restricts a
distributee's ability to act according to the permissions you have 
placed
in the license: then that distributor loses his license.

Do you understand? No? I didn't think so: you do not want to understand.
You want to treat the GPL as the BSD license because, even if you are a
Copyright owner: "I'll LOSE MUH JEHRB if I enforce my copyrights!".

Dog.

You have council for the opposition in your free software organizations.
You believe any bullshit reasons you are given BY such opposing council.
You're dogs: worker wage slave dogs. You're afraid you'll be blackballed
from "the industry" if you utilize your rights as a copyright holder.

You are disgusting scum: you allow your organizations to be overtaken;
you ignore causes of action that many IP firms would be happy to assist
you in pursuing, you ignore your friends, you worship your employers 
even
when you have separate pre-existing copyrights.

You're Dogs.

IBM: You own these slaves: could you kindly sue Open Source Security for 
Copyright infringement on the linux kernel copyrights (you own many 
thereof)?
Please. These dogs won't hunt: gurl tbg gurve onyyf erzbirq (naq gurl'er 
cebhq bs vg).