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  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]
Date:   Sun, 09 Aug 2020 03:10:02 +0000
From:   nipponmail@...email.cc
To:     bruce@...ens.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, esr@...rsus.com, moglen@...umbia.edu,
        blukashev@...pervictus.com, tcallawa@...hat.com, editor@....net,
        skraw.ml@...net.com, torvalds@...l.org, rms@....org
Subject: Bradly Spengler interview (GRSecurity) (Blatant GPL violators vs GCC
 and Linux Kernel)

Thought you might be interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv3a2tzUTn4

GRSecurity violates both the Linux kernel's copyright and the GCC 
copyright by forbidding redistribution of the patches (in their Access 
Agreement): which are non-seperable derivative works of the kernel and 
(in the case of the GCC plugins) GCC. Yes: threatening consequences if a 
licensee redistributes is a restraint on the "rights" given by the 
original copyright owners. Those "plugins" he is talking about as-well 
as the kernel patch violate the GPLv2. The GPLv2 _FORBIDS_ adding 
additional clauses not-within the GPL between the derivative-licensee 
and the down-the-line licensee. Bradly Spengler / OpenSourceSecurity are 
violating this stipulation, blatantly, in writing. They are also 
violating the "no additional restrictions" stipulation in the GPLv2. 
They ARE violating the Linux and the GCC copyright.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists