linux-kernel - Re: General Discussion about GPLness

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]

Date:   Mon, 24 Feb 2020 07:46:33 +0000
From:   whywontyousue@...fu.club
To:     Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw.ml@...net.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rms@....org, bruce@...ens.com,
        bind-users@...ts.isc.org, blukashev@...pervictus.com,
        tcallawa@...hat.com, torvalds@...l.org
Subject: Re: General Discussion about GPLness

> Hm, really it is quite hard to stay calm reading your constant insults 
> on

If such is so, it is shown to all that you are a stupid white man, what 
can I say. You can't separate facts from fiction (opinion)

The FACT relevant to this discussion is how the US Courts see this 
issue: and they see a Copyright violation when your Work modifies 
another protected Work without the Copyright owners permission.

You (the creator of the impinging Work) create a derivative work (yes, 
running) this way. You must have permission from the Copyright holder of 
the work you are modifying. You don't like that: I know; you've made it 
clear.

The Opinion that the Linux Kernel Copyright holders are weak scum has 
nothing to do with that and you should simply glide over those passages: 
they really shouldn't upset you.

What should Upset you is that they refuse to ever sue entities like 
OpenSourceSecurity (GrSecurity) and Bradly Spengler, to enforce their 
Copyrights. That has a "lets all violate the license" effect. The GPL 
_IS_ dead because of the INACTION of the linux scumbags and of the FSF 
(which has been captured by industry).

You killed the dream Linux copyright holder: Yes: Fuck you (unless you 
sue: then you are the greatest and I wish for you total and complete 
Victory.)

You asked a question "Why can't we violate the linux copyright in this 
way". Your question was answered.

What more do you want?
Well I gave you more: lots of opinion.
You want more or less?

How about YOU write the response you want?
Go to another email address, and respond to yourself
"Hey, yes, let us violate the linux copyrights, fuck the US courts, it 
doesn't matter"

Go on, I don't want to be the only other "person" in this thread.

Oh, and I've been contributing the Free Software for about 20 years, 
full time, so I haven't done nothing.

On 2020-02-23 20:47, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> Hm, really it is quite hard to stay calm reading your constant insults 
> on
> people that have quite sure done a lot more for free software than you 
> have.
> I do understand why you cannot enter a discussion with your real name, 
> as most
> of your input is of zero quality - and below.
> Unfortunately you did not even try to understand what the true issue is 
> all
> about. It is one story to modify running code that probably was never 
> ment to
> be patched that way (which would involve re-engineering it). But our 
> story is
> about kernel modules, something everybody is free to write and publish, 
> with a
> defined and open interface for interaction. No kernel code is modified 
> in that
> sense. But you fail to understand that.
> Hopefully others here do. I do not expect them to stand up and jump 
> into a
> discussion where you are a part of. But I hope people start to think 
> about it
> and realise - like I did - that this train is on the wrong track.
> After all I do believe that constructive interaction of software is 
> still
> better than destructive building of hurdles and walls.
> Because in the end people are only suffering from this approach and 
> nothing is
> protected.
> --
> Regards,
> Stephan
>