Not only do these fucking pieces of shit not want to discuss the fact that Grsecurity is violating the GPL. They now delete the information entirely. I hate these fucking people.

Should each Linux copyright owner of whom's copyright is being violated (By GrSecurity) bring a "small claims copyright" case every time GrSecurity sends a new infringing patch to a customer?

(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)

(GrSecurity's main Programmer: Brad Spengler: has shining resplendent blue eyes; like sapphires, however)

> https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/9503848/congress-case-copyright-reforms-covid-19-relief-bill/
>The CASE Act creates a new small claims system in the US that allows copyright holders to pursue damages for copyright infringement without filing a federal lawsuit. These claims would be decided by copyright officers, not judges and juries, and could involve no more than $15,000 per work infringed upon, and $30,000 total.

Does this new law create broader per-violation rights for the copyright holder? The then current copyright law makes it quite hard to go after violators: usually the lawsuit costs more than any hope of recovery. Every version you want to sue over, if you actually want to recover attorneys fees and statutory damages (not just whatever revenue you can proove (good luck)), has to be registered with the copyright office; same or similar violations subsequent to a registration by the same violator DO NOT grant you Attorney's fees and Statutory recovery; the same of a later version doesn't either.

It's hard to get any money out of a violator.
Especially how Free Software and Opensource copyright holders do things... (never registering their copyrights seemingly, always afraid, cowering before CoC's, being supplicants and slaves, doing it all for free, being kicked out of their own "societies)

>>79489051
>Why do they cling to gpl if they just ignore it?
Ask them.
Email them at linux-kernel(at)vger.kernel.org
Then check lkml.org
Ask them why they ignore the Grsecurity GPL violation.

>>79489063
Didn't think they'd delete it. LKML used to not censor. They also used to debate such things.

Here is a new email sent:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2021/1/1/115
(Which the wayback machine's save-page-now won't archive, just spins and spins and spins)

>>79489051
>Why do they cling to gpl if they just ignore it?
Why do enemies pretend to be friends?
They want you to do work for them for free: so they induce in you a belief that you will get code by way of the GPL if anyone modifies the code you contribute.

This is what drives the free-labour done. They then ban and delete any complaints about GPL violations, or stay silent and do not talk about them. The FSF and the Software Freedom Conservancy are the same, as Bradly Spengler notes:

> 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...

The FSF and the SFConservancy and "Any Lawyer" believe that claiming that Grsecurity violates the GPL by restricting redistribution is a "unsupported bizzare claim" according to Bradly Spengler.

The FSF head does NOT use free software: he is an apple faggot. Same with the SFconservancy (who don't do anything anyway, much like the FSF).

The only thing they do is:
1) Effectively embezzle donations
2) Pay themselves
3) Pay women
4) Give terrible legal advice.
5) Ban anyone who discusses GPL enforcement.