iscord.gg/FaKSAaKFhs
We are a genuine Christian server
We try to convert people to christianism, arguments are welcome, also this server is not for people who get mad easily

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

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

just now on #xubuntu
> Hello sir
> how are you
> My laptop is 2gb ram and 380 gb hardisk
> can i use xubunt

I need someone to do an illegal for me, upload these fonts in a zip to any pomf clone and post link here pls kthx X3.

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-ms-fonts/

Having defeated a defamation claim for speculating that using Grsecurity's Linux kernel hardening code may expose you to legal risk under the terms of the GPLv2 license, Bruce Perens is back in court.

This time, he's demanding Bradley Spengler \u2013 who runs Open Source Security Inc and develops Grsecurity \u2013 foots his hefty legal bills, after Spengler failed to successfully sue Perens for libel.

Perens, a noted figure in the open source community, and his legal team from O'Melveny & Myers LLP \u2013 as they previously told The Register \u2013 want to be awarded attorneys' fees under California's anti-SLAPP statute, a law designed to deter litigation that aims to suppress lawful speech.

That deterrence takes the form of presenting unsuccessful litigants with the bill for the cost of defending against meritless claims.

"Plaintiffs Open Source Security, Inc. and Bradley Spengler sued Defendant Bruce Perens to bully him from expressing his opinions that Plaintiffs' business practices violate Open Source licensing conditions and to discourage others from expressing the same opinions," Perens' latest filing, submitted to a US district court in San Francisco today, declared.

"Rather than allowing the public to judge Plaintiffs' contrary opinions through public debate, Plaintiffs tried to 'win' the argument on this unsettled legal issue by suing him."

[...]

Perens is asking for $667,665.25 in fees, which covers 833.9 hours expended on the litigation by numerous attorneys and a $188,687.75 success fee agreed upon to allow Perens to retain representation he might not otherwise have been able to afford.

http://perens.com/2018/02/08/bruce-perens-seeks-mandatory-award-of-legal-fees-for-his-defense-in-open-source-security-inc-and-bradley-spengler-v-bruce-perens/

Bruce Perens issues an advisory regarding the GRSecurity copyright issue:
https://perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/
<blockquote>
Warning: Grsecurity: Potential contributory infringement and breach of contract risk for customers

It\u2019s my strong opinion that your company should avoid the Grsecurity product sold at grsecurity.net because it presents a contributory infringement and breach of contract risk.

Grsecurity is a patch for the Linux kernel which, it is claimed, improves its security. It is a derivative work of the Linux kernel which touches the kernel internals in many different places. It is inseparable from Linux and can not work without it. it would fail a fair-use test (obviously, ask offline if you don\u2019t understand). Because of its strongly derivative nature of the kernel, it must be under the GPL version 2 license, or a license compatible with the GPL and with terms no more restrictive than the GPL. Earlier versions were distributed under GPL version 2.

Currently, Grsecurity is a commercial product and is distributed only to paying customers. My understanding from several reliable sources is that customers are verbally or otherwise warned that if they redistribute the Grsecurity patch, as would be their right under the GPL, that they will be assessed a penalty: they will no longer be allowed to be customers, and will not be granted access to any further versions of Grsecurity. GPL version 2 section 6 explicitly prohibits the addition of terms such as this redistribution prohibition.

By operating under their policy of terminating customer relations upon distribution of their GPL-licensed software, Open Source Security Inc., the owner of Grsecurity, creates an expectation that the customer\u2019s business will be damaged by losing access to support and later versions of the product, if that customer exercises their re-distribution right under the GPL license. This is tantamount to the addition of a term to the GPL prohibiting distribution or creating a penalty for distribution. GPL section 6 specifically prohibits any addition of terms. Thus, the GPL license, which allows Grsecurity to create its derivative work of the Linux kernel, terminates, and the copyright of the Linux Kernel is infringed. The contract from the Linux kernel developers to both Grsecurity and the customer which is inherent in the GPL is breached.

As a customer, it\u2019s my opinion that you would be subject to both contributory infringement and breach of contract by employing this product in conjunction with the Linux kernel under the no-redistribution policy currently employed by Grsecurity.

I have previously endorsed a company that distributes enhanced versions of GPL software to paying customers, but that company operated differently (and in a way that I would recommend to Grsecurity). They did not make any threat to customers regarding redistribution. They publicly distributed their commercial version within 9 months to one year after its customer-only distribution.

I told you this would happen, you all said it wouldn't, I assured you he would go full commercial within a year. He did. --MikeeUSA

GRSecurity removes public testing patch - goes full commercial.

http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/06/04/24

>"Don't worry about it, there's nothing for a "grateful" user like yourself
>to download anymore. Boy, if I had more "grateful" users like yourself
>obsessed with harrassing us on Twitter, Reddit, and IRC so that they
>can go around and paint themselves as some kind of victim, I wouldn't
>know what to do with myself.
>
>-Brad"

The solution?
As I said before, Copyright licenses (like any license) are freely revocable unless barred by estoppel. The GPL v2 lacks a no-revocation clause thus estoppel would be more difficult to argue (additonally none of the "agreeing parties" have ever met each other).

BEARD-O