Grsecurity GPL Violations: Linus/FSF/SFConservancy won't defend. Claw back your copyrights. BSD-in-Practice was not the deal.

From: nipponmail
Date: Sat Jan 02 2021 - 03:10:34 EST


Silence is consent.

Are there FOSS developers making decent money via Patreon, GoFundMe, whatever?

Yes, Grsecurity is making good money.
They simply added a no-redistribution agreement to their patch of the Linux Kernel.
( https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ )


The FSF, Software Freedom Conservancy, and the Corporate Linux Kernel Developers all agree that this is fine (silence is consent).

https://twitter.com/spendergrsec/status/1293155787859206146
Importantly, neither the FSF nor the SFC, nor in fact any actual lawyer agrees with this bizarre claim from an anonymous troll. More info about the source of the claim can be found here: https://grsecurity.net/setting_the_record_straight_on_oss_v_perens_part1
Thanks for doing your part, "Dr" to continue the troll's harrassment

LOL. " #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...


Contributors should blanket-revoke their contributions from all free-takers since they didn't agree to BSD-in-Practice. They should also claw-back any transferred copyrights from the FSF using the 30 year clawback provision in the US Copyright Act. Design of how a program works is a copyrightable aspect (Ex: How RMS designed GCC 30 years ago or so etc)

Had to repost this because the linux admins deleted the email:


https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/28/2518
The message you requested cannot be found.
The message you requested cannot be found. The message with the url http://feisty.lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/28/2518 does not exist in the database.

Grsecurity GPL Violations: Bring a CASE act claim every time GrSecurity releases a new infringing work?

(GRSecurity blatantly violates the clause in the Linux kernel and GCC copyright licenses regarding adding addtional terms between the licensee of the kernel / gcc and furthur down-the-line licensees, regarding derivative works)
(The linux kernel has 1000s of copyright holders)
(All who shake at the knees at the thought of initiating a federal Copyright lawsuit)