No.12027 [View All]
I've been emailing RMS. (Regarding the GCC plugins, etc)
RMS isn't going to do anything about GRSecurity because Bradly Kuhn, a non-lawyer who stabbed RMS in the back recently
>ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html
, said nothing can be done.
What the FUCK?
RMS says "No evidence right?" and "I'm not part of the FSF anymore" and "wasn't it agreed that nothing could be done?"
There is in-writing evidence:
>https://perens.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/06/grsecstablepatchaccessagreement_additionalterms.pdf
Has he forgotten about this:
Has he ever heard of "Discovery"?
Subpoena the customer list,
then subpoena the customers.
I told him the contributors to the FSF codebase should sue to recover their copyrights on the basis of fraud in the inducement then.
Why are these free-software people such fucking FAGGOTS that WONT SUE?
(And yes: you can recover donations to organizations that misuse your donation / don't do what you've instructed in atleast NY and California)
Bradly Kuhn is NOT A LAWYER: he's just a FAGGOT with a Bachelors degree, RMS BELIEVES HIM, and ignores actual lawyers. Is RMS a senile idiot?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12413
>>3146279 (You)
>>3146222
>Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges thatredistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicitobligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of accessto future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs.
>Making and using copies of the stable patches within a single organization is notconsidered redistribution
Vs:
----
>GPLv2
>You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
>2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
---
What does Notwithstanding mean?
> Notwithstanding \Not`with*stand"ing\, prep.
> Without prevention, or obstruction from or by; in spite of.
> [1913 Webster]
In spite of. "In spite of our above disclaimer, if you use the right in section 2 given by the original copyright holder, we will punish you.
And here's another provision not within the text of the GPL:
>Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the lawsof Pennsylvania without regard to the conflicts of laws provisions thereof.Exclusive jurisdiction and venue for any action arising under this Agreement is inthe federal and state courts having jurisdiction over The Company's principaloffice, and both parties hereby consent to such jurisdiction and venue for thispurpose.
The GPL has no choice of law provision. This is another violation.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12414
>>3146222
>>I am a lawyer.
>Then why are you having so much trouble with this simple license?
"Why don't you agree with opposing counsel"
Go and fuck yourself.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12418
>>12366
Because the milk was free.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12424
>>3147344
>1. Show how the access agreement prohibits anyone from exercising rights provided by the GPL. (protip: it does not. ask FSF and RMS)
I do not give a FUCKING SHIT if "everyone is past that part of the discussion" you FUCKING piece of GARBAGE.
The law is not past that part of the argument.
>1. Show how the access agreement prohibits anyone from exercising rights provided by the GPL. (protip: it does not. ask FSF and RMS)
The access agreement places a constructive restraint on the distributee's ability to distribute the subject Work by fore-warning a penalty if such an action is taken.
This is effectively a prior restraint on alienation. The original copyright holders granted a liberty, and they made clear that they did not want anyone down the line restricting or impeding distributees from using such liberties. Grsecurity has indeed impeeded the use of one of the enumerated liberties within the GPL. Thus violating section 6.
If someone said "You may fish in this pond, but if you do, I will make sure you never fish in this pond again": that would be a restraint on your ability to fish in the pond. If someone said "I can't force you to do or not to do something: but I can make you wish you had" --(US Army): that indeed is an enforcement of a condition.
Additionally section 4 is violated by adding the additional term not expressly included in the GPL. The existence of the access agreement is a violation. Whether you want to discuss it or not.
>1. Show how the access agreement prohibits anyone from exercising rights provided by the GPL. (protip: it does not. ask FSF and RMS)
It does seem that the FSF and RMS and Redhat absolutly endorse GRSecurity's actions by their silence, and RMS's screaming "STTOOPP HARRASSSINGE MEEEEE I DONT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS". I agree with you on that.
If such is the case, RMS is wrong (he was wrong on "you can't rescind bare copyright license from free takers" as-well).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12425
>>3147352
Go and FUCK yourself.
You've gotten your answer, you just reject it.
I am going to keep posting it as long as you repost your "NO You are wrong, No gpl violation" BULLSHIT.
But you're right that RMS and the FSF seem to tacitly absolutely solidly endorse Grsecurity's view with their inaction and silence since 2017. RMS seems to be a do-nothing has-been asshole. Seemingly now taking on the garb of a charlatan that won't even stand behind his past "pro-pedo" statements because some of his false friends got mad. Nor will he stand behind his copyright license, nor does he understand copyright law or anything about the law (in his life he could have bothered to set aside 3 years for law school)
"YOU'RE HAARRASSINGE ME BY MENTIONING THIS BLATANT VIOLATION' "LAWYERS GET ME MY LAWYERS THIS OTHER LAWYER IS HAAARREAAAASSSSINGE MEEE"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12426
>>3147365
Why? The copyright violation is in part 1.
Part 2 does not take away the violation, and I never ever mentioned it nor claimed 2. Copyright law DOES force you _not_ to impede (including constructively) the distributee from redistributing a work subject to the parent-copyright owners conditions.
(The GPL doesn't do anything on it's own, I don't know why you base everything around it: It's the copyright violation penalties that give any teeth to the imposition of the copyright owners will regarding his work and derivatives threre-of (which grsecurity is))
3. I'm not working for Brad: but I do love his patch. He sued me in court: I'm one of the John Does.
https://www.itwire.com/open-source/linux-kernel-patch-maker-says-court-case-was-only-way-out.html
I did mention to some of my manager friends that Grsecurity needs a good manager so it can make enough money to get sued. I hope they find one (or my friends send one over)
You're so totally right about RMS and the FSF, I have nothing to disagree with you there. They are absolutely useless.
The EFF is more of a free software helping law entity than the FSF. Oracle's Larry Ellison would enforce the GPL copyright license more than TODAY's RMS would.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12427
>>3147371
>you hint the nail on the head with the advertising. he's so afraid of it he just started spamming to kill the discussion lol
You're claiming advertising and "it's a scam" so no one will care about the Copyright violation; as in
"Who cares if it is violating, this is not a valuable work".
You're wrong there, but you know just as-much about computer security and C internals as you do about copyright law.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12428
>>3147391
I do not have a copy of the patch newer than 5 years old. How can I give you something I don't have?
>>3147391
>2. So can you agree that Brad is not obligated to provide you with his modification? (please don't rant and just answer this specific question)
Stop confusing the issue you fucking piece of garbage. The copyright infringement is:
1) Adding additional terms (ANY additional terms: including that forum selection clause) when modifying/distributing/etc. Violating section 4.
2) Constructively restraining distributees from utilizing a right granted by the parent-copyright holder to which grsecurity is subject to (being a non-seperable derivative): violating section 6.
I have never talked about Bradly distributing his patches to ME. So why do you bring it up.
The GPL's purpose _IS_ EXPRESSLY so that derivative works DO get out into the public and the source "can never be closed". Grsecurity has successfully counternavigated that: it IS violating the copyright: The FSF tacitly APPLAUDS Grsecurity, as does Nu-RMS.
Yes, RMS and the FSF seem to be on Grsecurity's side. They've said nothing in the last 3 years in public: they've done nothing to enforce the GCC copyrights: they're complicit in the minds of the public.
Why? Because they want people to make money from free software: and if that means violating their old values: fine. If that means violating the copyright: well fuck it: just don't enforce.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12429
>>3147391
Read this:
https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/
Then argue with Bruce Perens, the founder of the OSI. I'm done giving you my take: read his: then come here and tell us why he and his lawyer friends in California are wrong (you won't).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12430
>>12418
Why didn't he marry her when she was a little girl?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12433
>>3147548
Tell us your problem with recognizing an constructive restraint. Tell us.
>>3147545
Bradly spengler has
1) Added terms not expressly within the GPL when modifying/distributing the Work: violating section 4 of the GPL v2.
>4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
Bradly spengler is doing just that with his Access Agreement. That in-and-of-itself is a copyright violation.
Refute this.
>>3147545
>There is no constructive restraint to your GPL rights, as you are not prevented from distributing the program you have been given. Access agreement is about additional services that Brad will or will not provide you in the future.
Section 6 of the GPL states as follows:
>6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
Section 2 of the GPL states as follows:
>2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
Bradly spengler Adds this stipulation:
>Redistribution
>Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges thatredistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit obligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of accessto future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs.
That's a violation: an additional term that works to (sucessfully) nullify a right.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12434
>>3147632
I'm an actual lawyer not from the FSF.
The FSF lawyers are charlitans who work for an organization which has been captured by the industry. The only thing they do today is :
1) never enforce the copyrights they collected.
2) discourage others from enforcing their own copyrights.
They are scum. RMS is the same since he has given up the fight.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12435
>>3147632
Tell us specifically what points in Bruce Peren's wright-up you have issue with. He had his california lawyer friends to help him with his article.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12436
>>3147632
>2. "it’s 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", while GPL clearly states "parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
You are a fucking idiot. Don't you understand contributory copyright infringement at all? When you assist in copyright infringement, such as facilitating third parties to engage in infringing activity: in this case the redistribution of Grsecurity's infringing derivative work: you can be held liable for contributory infringement. It's like you haven't read the Napster case, nor the Grokster case, et al. What is your issue with Bruce Peren's note there? Just because a distributee has a license for the parent work, does not mean assisting in the dissemination of an infringing work is permitted.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12437
>>3147545
>>>Yes, RMS and the FSF seem to be on Grsecurity's side (...) Why?
>>Because there is no GPL violation. They told you time and again and you even posted some responses here.
You sure about that?
<----
Message Body
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> RMS: This is _EXACTLY__ what you did NOT want to happen. They are
> creating proprietary (no-redistribution) patches for GCC.
Do we have proof of that, proof we could take into court?
I am not the president of the FSF any more, so I can't decide what
the FSF will do about this. But if we see clearly they are
violating, and that we can prove it, maybe the FSF will act.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12438
>>3147545
>>>Yes, RMS and the FSF seem to be on Grsecurity's side (...) Why?
>>Because there is no GPL violation. They told you time and again and you even posted some responses here.
You sure about that?
<----
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
As I recall, GrSecurity is violating the GPL
but we cannot stop it unless some customer testifies about what
GrSecurity is doing.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12441
>>12430
Most likely because that is illegal.
and the milk was still free.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12442
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12447
>>12441
Why is marrying little girls illegal?
Why are white men such pieces of shit that they ban everything good. Should all white men be tortured untill they are dead (they want to do this to anyone that likes cute girls)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12448
>NCR Corp. v. ATM Exchange, Inc., 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1216, 2006 WL 1401635, *4 (S.D. Ohio 2006)
> >(A final product can be considered infringing even if it does not contain any of the original products's code, so long as it originated from infringing conduct)
Even if what you say would be so, as an independent action (or lack thereof), since it relates back to an infringing act: it itself is a continuation thereof
Grsecurity added additional terms while modifying/distributing the work; the infringing action (forbidden by section 4 of the GPLv2 copyright license).
>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services, Inc., 907 F.Supp. 1361, 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1097, 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1545 (N.D. Cal. 1995)
Once one has notification of infringement, if one does not then take steps in one's power to mitigate said infringement: one is liable for contributory infringement.
Here the Grsecurity customers have been informed about Grsecurity's infringing acts. The necessary steps would be to stop using the infringing derivative in one's products, services, etc; and to stop purchasing Grsecurity's infringing derivative work.
>750 F.3d 1339 at 1380
Even copying declaring code, and overall structure and sequence and organization (SSO) without authorization is infingement of the software owner's copyright
>Oracle America, Inc. V. Google LLC. 888 F.3d 1179 (2018)
Even unautorized use of programming APIs is copyright infringement.
>BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Cox Communications, Incorporated, 881 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2018)
permits the inference of a direct infingement claim using circumstantial evidence. (Ex: Grsecurity's access agreement, no one ever redistributing the patch subject to such -> inference of interferance in right granted in GPL (redistribution to 3rd parties) (violation of section 6 of GPLv2 copyright license)
>RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 WL 127311 (W.D. Wash. 2000)
Creating a "plugin" that will run and alter the in-memory running application, is also prohibited without obeying the copyright owners instructions and limitations, and creates a prohibited derivative.
Here Grsecurity lacks authorization to create derivatives while also imposing additional terms of it's own when modifying/distributing/etc the Work (Section 4 of the copyright license (GPL v2)).
>-------------------------------------------
> boards(dot)4channel(dot)org(slash)qa(slash)thread(slash)3144510#p3147833 wrote:
>>3147797
> >an additional term that works to (sucessfully) nullify a right.
> To break the access agreement you have to share the program. To share the program you must have downloaded the program from them. They do not distribute binaries, so you must have downloaded source code. Once you have downloaded the source code, their obligation towards you end and they are free to cut your access to the download section. This is explicitly allowed by the GPL section 1: "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy". Terminating access to the download area does not prevent you from sharing the program, so no rights are being nullified.
>
> >>3147802
> >Tell us specifically what points in Bruce Peren's wright-up you have issue with.
> I've listed them with quotes and comments, including a relevant passage from the GPL.
>
> >>3147805
> >When you assist in copyright infringement, such as facilitating third parties to engage in infringing activity(...)
> GPL is very clear - as long as you remain in compliance with GPL yourself, you retain your rights under the GPL license. You retain them even if the party you have received the program from has the license terminated. You cannot commit copyright infringement if you have a license for the copyrighted work.
>
> >>3147800
> >I'm an actual lawyer not from the FSF.
> >The FSF lawyers are charlitans
> Yes, it's clearly the FSF lawyers that are charlatans here.
>
> >>3147810
> >>3147811
> Post the whole chain, including the part where he tells you to BTFO, mr charlatan.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12456
(No matter _WHAT_ I say, the programmers say I'm wrong)
>>3148358
>No case citations.
Keep shilling your bullshit. Grsecurity is violating the copyright on the linux kernel and GCC.
>Your whole premise is based on this one weak point. In reality, no additional terms are added to the GPL, as access agreement is separate from the program and covers only access to the paid download page, which is allowed by the GPL.
You are a stupid fuck. The Copyright license governs all use of the copyrighted work. The Copyright license doesn't ban "adding terms to the Copyright license text", it bans adding terms BETWEEN the licensing parties.
Which Grsecurity is doing.
It bans that forum selection clause too.
When Grsecurity proffered all of those terms in the access agreement: the "Redistribution" term, the Forum Selection term, etc: EACH of those violates the Copyright license of the parent work. It is simply not allowed.
You are not allowed to say "I am distributing and modifying this Work, which is subject to the copyright of Parent Work, but for you, dear distributee, if you have a problem related to my Derivative Work of the Parent Work, You can only sue me in PA"
The Copyright license bans such an additional term between subject licensee and further-distributee. You can't add such a forum selection clause when modifying or distributing the derivative.
The Redistribution terms also add additional terms between the subject licensee and the further distributee. Both these terms violate section 4.
The Redistribution additional term violates section 6 of the Copyright license aswell.
----
>>3148358
>Being in the wrong sucks, huh?
I'm not wrong you piece of fucking garbage.
You are the one that thinks that the GPL copyright license bans "adding things to the license text". You fucking moron. You don't even know what a license is, you think the license is the memorandum.
The license is permission: it's ethereal: and it's memorialized in the license text. Adding additional terms between you and the distributee on a seperate piece of paper...
YOU think that's fine and allowed.
You are a stupid fucking idiot.
>1. This does not constitute a "constructive restraint",
Yes it does.
>as they are still free to use their rights.
They are restrained from doing so by a fore-warned consequence. This is prior-restraint.
>You should really talk to a lawyer about this.
I am a lawyer.
----
>
> >>3148256
> > The access agreement itself is an additional term not included in the GPL.
> Your whole premise is based on this one weak point. In reality, no additional terms are added to the GPL, as access agreement is separate from the program and covers only access to the paid download page, which is allowed by the GPL.
>
> >You retain the rights to the PARENT work, but this cannot protect you regarding an INFRINGING work; which grsecurity is since
> >1) additional terms are added (no redistribution, forum selection clause)
> As grscam is distributed under unmodified GPL code, any Brad clients (aka suckers) are covered by the GPL. They can also distribute the scam to others, granting them the same GPL rights.
>
> >Because customers are afraid to have their access denied, which they rely on to keep from being hacked, they are induced never to use a right given to them by the original copyright holders. It is a constructive restraint, and is successful.
> 1. This does not constitute a "constructive restraint", as they are still free to use their rights. You should really talk to a lawyer about this.
> 2. grscam cannot keep you from being hacked. come on now, at least try to be plausible here
>
> >No matter how much I argue: I can't defeat these people.
> >They alway have a reason why Grsecurity is in the right:
> Being in the wrong sucks, huh?
>
> If you were really concerned about Free Software, you would buy the access yourself (or through a proxy), distribute the patches according to GPL and sue Brad for limiting your access. Of course we all know you are running an outrage advertisement campaign for him so that won't happen.
>>>FUCK YOU FLOOD DETECTED
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12457
>>3149080
>GPL does not ban agreements that do not prohibit exercising rights provided by GPL
Yes it does. The GPL bans any agreements regarding the Copyrighted work or any Subject work that contains terms not Expressly within the text of the GPL:
>4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
Grsecurity is modifying and distibuting the Program but with terms not expressly provided under the License. Examples of those terms are:
The section labeled "Redistribution" in the Access Agreement (which a distributee must agree to when Grsecurity is distributing the work)
The Forum Selection clause.
These both violate section 4. Grsecurity is modifying and distributing the Program while also adding terms not expressly within the GPL. It is a blantant violation.
>>3149080
You are wrong.
Peter Brown is wrong if he believes that one can forwarn a consequence to forstall a distributee from redistributing the work. It does not matter if HE thinks this is not a violation: it is. HE is not the copyright owner, and HE doesn't know what the FUCK he is talking about if he thinks that enacting an prior-restraint on redistribution is "not violating the GPL"
HE is a shitty lawyer if he believes that.
Do you think Peter Brown believes this?
You cite the FSF as if you do.
>Not a good one, if at all.
Go and fuck yourself.
You cited NO cases, I cited many.
You just cite the FSF a pro-business pro-GPL violation organization that NEVER enforces the GPL anymore. Cite some cases you fucking dipshit.
What Grsecurity is doing is constructively restraining any redistribution of their patch, which is in violation of section 6 of the copyright license.
------
>>3149080
Not one case cited, yet again. Cite some cases, piece of shit. Or do you not know law?
-------
>>3149041
>>>No case citations.
>>Keep shilling your bullshit. Grsecurity is violating the copyright on the linux kernel and GCC.
>You will have to cite a ruling where grscam was found guilty of violating the GPL. Until you do, they have not violated the GPL.
>
>>it bans adding terms BETWEEN the licensing parties.
>GPL does not ban agreements that do not prohibit exercising rights provided by GPL
>> If the software is licensed
>> under the GPL, and you distribute the source code with the binaries (as
>> opposed to making an offer for source code), you are under no obligation to
>> supply future releases to anyone.
>>
>> Please be clear that the subscription is for the support and
>> distribution and not for a license.
>>
>> Peter Brown
>> GPL Compliance Manager
>> Free Software Foundation
>
>>I am a lawyer.
>Not a good one, if at all.
>
>So how are sales of the scam going since the start of this outrage campaign?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12458
> >>3149133
>>The GPL bans any agreements regarding the Copyrighted work or any Subject work that contains terms not Expressly within the text of the GPL:
>Not for redistribution. I've cited opinion of a GPL Compliance Manager of FSF. All you have are your confused ramblings.
>
>>>3149139
>Do you know how burden of proof works? You are yet to cite a single case where agreement for distribution violates the GPL.
>
>Why won't you sue Brad yourself? Because you not interested in Free Software. You are advertising his scam.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12459
>>3149172
Still no case citations.
>Why won't you sue Brad yourself? Because you not interested in Free Software. You are advertising his scam.
Because I'm a lawyer, I'm not one of the 1000s of linux kernel copyright holders, nor am I the GCC copyright holder. Are you stupid?
It's like you know nothing of standing, lol. Fucking idiot.
>>3149172
>Not for redistribution. I've cited opinion of a GPL Compliance Manager of FSF.
Isn't worth shit. The FSF claimed for 20, 30 years that dynamically linking a GPL'd library implicated the linking work. IE: That API's are copyrightable.
If you knew anything you'd know that that wasn't the case until 2018 in Oracle vs Google (9th circuit). But you don't know shit. Citing the FSF, lol.
> All you have are your confused ramblings.
I have case citations and law. What do you have? Some bullshit from a defunct organization? "Hey I cited opposing counsel: I win right" (and yes: the FSF is an anti-GPL enforcement pro-business organization that hasn't enforced their copyrights they promised to enforce in almost 2 decades now)
>Do you know how burden of proof works? You are yet to cite a single case where agreement for distribution violates the GPL.
It's called a case of first impression, retard. Do you think that such things don't exist? "Oh sorry, this exact fact pattern hasn't happened previously: so we can't adjudicate it"
>The GPL bans any agreements regarding the Copyrighted work or any Subject work that contains terms not Expressly within the text of the GPL:
>Not for redistribution.
Yes it does. For redistribution, for modification, for sublicensing. Your FSF case manager, if he believes that that enacting an prior-restraint on redistribution is "not violating the GPL", is full of shit and doesn't know the first thing about Copyright law, you fucking piece of shit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12460
>>3149172
Still no case citations.
I'll tell you what: I am going to simply repost my cited wrighting, every time you post without any case citations. We'll see if you can ever get into this law thing, you stupid fucking lay idiot.
I'll be waiting for your case citations.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12461
>>3149172
>NCR Corp. v. ATM Exchange, Inc., 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1216, 2006 WL 1401635, *4 (S.D. Ohio 2006)
> >(A final product can be considered infringing even if it does not contain any of the original products's code, so long as it originated from infringing conduct)
Even if what you say would be so, as an independent action (or lack thereof), since it relates back to an infringing act: it itself is a continuation thereof
Grsecurity added additional terms while modifying/distributing the work; the infringing action (forbidden by section 4 of the GPLv2 copyright license).
>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 1995)
Once one has notification of infringement, if one does not then take steps in one's power to mitigate said infringement: one is liable for contributory infringement.
Here the Grsecurity customers have been informed about Grsecurity's infringing acts. The necessary steps would be to stop using the infringing derivative in one's products, services, etc; and to stop purchasing Grsecurity's infringing derivative work.
>750 F.3d 1339 at 1380
Even copying declaring code, and overall structure and sequence and organization (SSO) without authorization is infingement of the software owner's copyright
>Oracle America, Inc. V. Google LLC. (2018)
Even unautorized use of programming APIs is copyright infringement.
>BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Cox Communications, Incorporated, (4th Cir. 2018)
permits the inference of a direct infingement claim using circumstantial evidence. (Ex: Grsecurity's access agreement, no one ever redistributing the patch subject to such -> inference of interferance in right granted in GPL (redistribution to 3rd parties) (violation of section 6 of GPLv2 copyright license)
>(... continued below)
------
>>3149172
>(... continued from)
>RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc.
Creating a "plugin" that will run and alter the in-memory running application, is also prohibited without obeying the copyright owners instructions and limitations, and creates a prohibited derivative.
Here Grsecurity lacks authorization to create derivatives while also imposing additional terms of it's own when modifying/distributing/etc the Work (Section 4 of the copyright license (GPL v2)).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12462
>>3149172
Your "GPL Compliance Manager of FSF", Peter T. Brown is not a lawyer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._Brown
>Peter T. Brown was the Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) from 2005 until early 2011. Having come from a business management and finance background,[1] he began working for the organization in 2001 as a comptroller, and was promoted to Executive Director in 2005 after the departure of Bradley Kuhn. He was replaced by John Sullivan.[2] He has since joined the Software Freedom Conservancy as a director and treasurer.[3] He is from Oxford, England, and has worked in the past for the BBC and the New Internationalist.
>
>He became an American citizen in August 2017.[4]
I am a lawyer. You choose to believe him instead. Still no case citations, only citations to Mr. Brown.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12463
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12467
>3149331
>There were no cases of limiting access to a download section being ruled as violating the GPL, and there won't be any. Copyright holders are not interested in wasting money by losing a lawsuit just to prove something that is common sense. If you were a real lawyer you would know that.
>You can spam your irrelevant cases all you want, but lunatic ramblings of a rando nobody will not convince anyone. On the contrary, people will trust in good judgement of reputable sources like FSF or RMS.
>
>How much is Brad paying you for advertising his grscam?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12468
>>3149359
Still no case citations.
>You can spam your irrelevant cases all you want, but lunatic ramblings of a rando nobody will not convince anyone.
Is Bruce Perens a "random nobody"
>But he's not a lawyer
Neither is RMS, nor is the FSF man you cited.
But Bruce was advised by his California Lawyer friends: who looked over his article before he posted it. I think they know what they were talking about: but you do not agree.
>There were no cases of limiting access to a download section being ruled as violating the GPL, and there won't be any.
Here, again, you try to confuse the issue. The issue is the constructive restraint on redistribution to third parties that Grsecurity is engaged in: which violates section 6 of the Copyright license it must adhere too. An additional issue is the addtional terms that Grsecurity adds when modifying/distributing/etc the Work: in violation of secrion 4 of the Copyright license which forbids any terms not expressly within the license text from being added to the "agreement" between the licensee and the down-the-line distributee(s). Grsecurity has added a "Redistribution" section, and a Forum Selection clause (you can only sue them in PA). Both of these are forbidden by section 4 of the GPL, If you want to have them you must not base your work on a GPL'd work or must ask the copyright owners for different terms: neither of which Grsecurity has done.
Forum selection clauses are in many OpenSource licenses (Mozilla license etc). It's not nothing to tack one on while modifying/distributing an implicated work. It's a very big thing, you would know this if you had anything to do with law (you don't). An arbitration clause would have been even worse...
>How much is Brad paying you for advertising his grscam?
Here you pretend to be "Against grsecurity" to try to give some credibility to your "nooo they aren't blatantly violating the copyright license" argument.
-----
>>3149359
>Copyright holders are not interested in wasting money by losing a lawsuit just to prove something that is common sense.
"Common sense" has nothing to do with the law. You also misstated the heart of the case; because you're either an idiot or are willfully confusing the issues.
> If you were a real lawyer you would know that.
I am a real lawyer.
I know that "Common sense" has nothing to do with the law. You're a lay idiot who thinks his "intuition" has some relevance on the law.
And since you still have given no case citations...
-----
>>3149359
>NCR Corp. v. ATM Exchange, Inc., 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1216, 2006 WL 1401635, *4 (S.D. Ohio 2006)
> >(A final product can be considered infringing even if it does not contain any of the original products's code, so long as it originated from infringing conduct)
Even if what you say would be so, as an independent action (or lack thereof), since it relates back to an infringing act: it itself is a continuation thereof
Grsecurity added additional terms while modifying/distributing the work; the infringing action (forbidden by section 4 of the GPLv2 copyright license).
>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 1995)
Once one has notification of infringement, if one does not then take steps in one's power to mitigate said infringement: one is liable for contributory infringement.
Here the Grsecurity customers have been informed about Grsecurity's infringing acts. The necessary steps would be to stop using the infringing derivative in one's products, services, etc; and to stop purchasing Grsecurity's infringing derivative work.
>750 F.3d 1339 at 1380
Even copying declaring code, and overall structure and sequence and organization (SSO) without authorization is infingement of the software owner's copyright
>Oracle America, Inc. V. Google LLC. (2018)
Even unautorized use of programming APIs is copyright infringement.
>BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Cox Communications, Incorporated, (4th Cir. 2018)
permits the inference of a direct infingement claim using circumstantial evidence. (Ex: Grsecurity's access agreement, no one ever redistributing the patch subject to such -> inference of interferance in right granted in GPL (redistribution to 3rd parties) (violation of section 6 of GPLv2 copyright license)
>(... continued below)
-----
>>3149359
>(... continued from)
>RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc.
Creating a "plugin" that will run and alter the in-memory running application, is also prohibited without obeying the copyright owners instructions and limitations, and creates a prohibited derivative.
Here Grsecurity lacks authorization to create derivatives while also imposing additional terms of it's own when modifying/distributing/etc the Work (Section 4 of the copyright license (GPL v2)).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12477
> Anonymous 03/06/20(Fri)22:39:40 No.3149466\u25b6>>3149941 >>3149943 >>3149944 >>3149948
>
> >>3149411
> >The issue is the constructive restraint on redistribution to third parties that Grsecurity is engaged in
> Here, again, you try to confuse the issue. Grscam is distributed under unmodified GPLv2. "Additional terms" you speak of are for a download service provided by Brad, as permitted by GPLv2 section 1.
> I'm still waiting for you to cite a single case where someone has GPL revoked for providing a download service for a fee or not sharing updates. (you won't)
>
> PSA: do not pay for grsecurity. It is a scam
>
>>>
>Anonymous 03/07/20(Sat)01:15:20 No.3149583\u25b6>>3149941 >>3149943 >>3149944
>
> >>3148258
> Eat shit you horrible cunt.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12478
>>3149466
>>3149583
>>>3148258
> Eat shit you horrible cunt.
Another day, still no case citations. Is this law thing difficult for you?
>>3149466
>Here, again, you try to confuse the issue. >Grscam is distributed under unmodified GPLv2.
You are a stupid fucking moron.
Grsecurity is modified and distributed pursuant to the terms of the GPLv2 PLUS the Access Agreement.
You are a stupid piece of fucking shit that thinks that "OH IF IT JUST PUT MY ADDITIONAL TERMS BETWEEN ME AND THE DISTRIBUTEE IN A _SEPERATE_ WRIGHTING____ I CAN CIRCUMVENT THE "No extranious terms" provision (section 4, GPLv2).
No, you cannot: you stupid fucking non-lawyer lay programmer fucking idiot.
>"Additional terms" you speak of are for a download service provided by Brad, as permitted by GPLv2 section 1.
No additional terms are permitted, AT ALL, when distributing, modifying, or sublicensing a GPLv2 licensed work. NONE. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING SKULL.
While section 1 allows payment for PHYSICAL MEDIA (not downloads, not "download services"),
>You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
it does NOT allow you to add additional terms when modifying or distributing the work:
Such as:
1) an additional "Redistribution" Section
2) a Forum Selection clause.
Bradly is doing exactly this: adding terms to the agreement between him the licensee and the distributee that are not EXPRESSLY provided in the GPL. Thus violating section 4.
>I'm still waiting for you to cite a single case where someone has GPL revoked for providing a download service for a fee or not sharing updates. (you won't)
FUCK you you piece of fucking shit. Go to hell.
I really hope you DIE. "Case of first impression"
The issue is the additional terms and you know it you fucking piece of shit. You constantly confuse the issue. I pray that you are brutally tortured to death you stupid fucking lay idiot.
----
>4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
Bradly does not have a license to modify or create derivative works of Linux or of GCC.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12479
----
>>3149466
>>3149583
>NCR Corp. v. ATM Exchange, Inc., 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1216, 2006 WL 1401635, *4 (S.D. Ohio 2006)
> >(A final product can be considered infringing even if it does not contain any of the original products's code, so long as it originated from infringing conduct)
Even if what you say would be so, as an independent action (or lack thereof), since it relates back to an infringing act: it itself is a continuation thereof
Grsecurity added additional terms while modifying/distributing the work; the infringing action (forbidden by section 4 of the GPLv2 copyright license).
>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 1995)
Once one has notification of infringement, if one does not then take steps in one's power to mitigate said infringement: one is liable for contributory infringement.
Here the Grsecurity customers have been informed about Grsecurity's infringing acts. The necessary steps would be to stop using the infringing derivative in one's products, services, etc; and to stop purchasing Grsecurity's infringing derivative work.
>750 F.3d 1339 at 1380
Even copying declaring code, and overall structure and sequence and organization (SSO) without authorization is infingement of the software owner's copyright
>Oracle America, Inc. V. Google LLC. (2018)
Even unautorized use of programming APIs is copyright infringement.
>BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Cox Communications, Incorporated, (4th Cir. 2018)
permits the inference of a direct infingement claim using circumstantial evidence. (Ex: Grsecurity's access agreement, no one ever redistributing the patch subject to such -> inference of interferance in right granted in GPL (redistribution to 3rd parties) (violation of section 6 of GPLv2 copyright license)
>(... continued below)
-----
>>3149466
>>3149583
>(... continued from)
>RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc.
Creating a "plugin" that will run and alter the in-memory running application, is also prohibited without obeying the copyright owners instructions and limitations, and creates a prohibited derivative.
Here Grsecurity lacks authorization to create derivatives while also imposing additional terms of it's own when modifying/distributing/etc the Work (Section 4 of the copyright license (GPL v2)).
------
>>3149466
I notice you stupid fuck aren't citing the FSF anymore. You thought Mr Brown was an "FSF Lawyer". Lol. Stupid fucking moron. You don't know what you don't know (but you think you know it all)
And yes: what Grsecurity is engaged in is a constructive restraint on redistribution. And you simply don't know what that means, or its implications in the courts. Stupid fucking white WERKING class piece of shit.
------
>>3149583
>>>3148258
>Eat shit you horrible cunt.
Still no case citations, dipshit? Don't even understand the value of them?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12480
>>3149466
>>3149583
Why aren't you citing Peter Brown anymore? Did something happen? Little lay idiot white werkin man? Did something happen? Some info you were too stupid to check into make you not want to cite the "FSF Lawyer" Peter T. Brown? What happened?
And where are your case citations? Where? Why can't you produce any? I provide citations to build my case; why can't you? Are you a stupid white werking class fuck? Is that it? With your "common sense"?
And you never mentioned if Bruce Perens with his California Lawyer is a "Nobody". Don't like the question? Doesn't support your assertions?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12482
>>3149941
>>Grsecurity is modified and distributed pursuant to the terms of the GPLv2 PLUS the Access Agreement.
>If you pay for grscam, you can distribute it further under GPLv2 WITHOUT passing on the Access Agreement. Former is not prohibiting you from distribution and deals only with access to the paid download area.
>
>>No additional terms are permitted, AT ALL, when distributing, modifying, or sublicensing a GPLv2 licensed work.
>This is how we know you are not a lawyer. Separate terms for download access and/or support are not only permitted, but industry standard. For example, RedHat has paid distribution and support that you sign a separate license for: https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Enterprise_Agreement_WebversionGlobal_English_20180416.pdf
>
>>"Case of first impression"
>Once again, you are not a judge (or a lawyer)
>
>>Bradly does not have a license to modify or create derivative works of Linux or of GCC.
>You are yet to show how he lost that license.
>
>>Why aren't you citing Peter Brown anymore?
>Why should I repeat myself? Are you a goldfish?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12483
>>3149966
Again we see in this post not one case citation.
>If you pay for grscam, you can distribute it further under GPLv2 WITHOUT passing on the Access Agreement. Former is not prohibiting you from distribution and deals only with access to the paid download area.
Grsecurity is not allowed to modify, distribute, sublicense the Work while adding additional terms between them and the distributee; because their work is subject to the parent-work's copyright and the parent-copyright holders have the right to control derivative works. They have chosen to forbid any modification, sublicensing, or distribution where ANY terms not-expressly within the GPL license are proffered: which Grsecurity is doing with it's access agreement. Pound sand all you want: that is what is happening.
>This is how we know you are not a lawyer. Separate terms for download access and/or support are not only permitted, but industry standard. For example, RedHat has paid distribution and support that you sign a separate license for: https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Enterprise_Agreement_WebversionGlobal_English_20180416.pdf
RedHat is violating the GPLv2 license, they have been doing so for many years. You wonder, however, why they are not sued. It is very simple: 1) they are a massive copyright holder in the linux kernel. If another rightsholder sued them they have options:
A) Rescind the gratis license from the other copyrightholder for their code. Yes: when you are given a license for free: it can be revoked: as there is no contract
B) Argue that the linux kernel is a joint work. Various copyright owners in a joint work may license the whole work out however they please, since RedHat is an active and substantial contributor to Linux they might have a shot at this argument, though the current jurisprudence doesn't support it.
C) RedHad distributes all its sourcecode itself, it doesn't try to prevent redistribution of the code. This makes the section 4 violation of little interest to the..
-----
>>3150010
...
C) RedHad distributes all its sourcecode itself, it doesn't try to prevent redistribution of the code. This makes the section 4 violation of little interest to the other rightsholders.
---
In contrast.
Grsecurity does all it can to prevent redistribution of it's derivative work, it does so by forwarning a penalty: thus erecting a prior restraint against a right granted by the original copyright holders: Thus violating section 6.
It also violates section 4 with the additional terms (RedHat does aswell, it doesn't matter if this is "Industry Standard": it is still a violation and you can shout all you want about "standard business practices" you white werking man piece of shit. Cisco cried similarly too: it cost them $10,000,000 US.).
The difference between Grsecurity and Redhat is the position of the entities:
RedHat has legal options to retaliate against other copyright owners who challenge it's scheme.
RedHat also makes it's own violation moot in the eyes of the other rights-holders by distributing it's source code freely itself. Grsecurity does all it can to prevent redistribution of its source code.
So the quantum meruit of RedHat's violation is very small: though they could be hit with statutory damages if fellow copyright owners wished to press the issue (if they bothered to register their copyrights prior); but Grsecurity's violation has real consequences that run counter to the well-known intent of the parent-copyright owners.
That's the difference.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12484
>>3149966
>You are yet to show how he lost that license.
By operation of the license, you just will not accept that constructivly restricting redistribution is a direct violation of section 6, and that adding additional terms ("redistribution section, forum selection clause") when modifying/distributing/sublicense the impacted work is a violation of section 4.
You simply reject that the Copyright holders permissions apply to Grsecurity. So fuck you,
You're a stupid ass working man who cites other working men like that FSF non-lawyer, who you THOUGHT was a lawyer.
I am a lawyer. You are just some wagefuck.
-----
>>3149966
I am praying to YHWH that you die. White working class wagefuck.
-----
>>3149966
>>Bradly does not have a license to modify or create derivative works of Linux or of GCC.
>You are yet to show how he lost that license.
>4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
"Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. "
Grsecurity is modifying sublicensing and distributing the Program under terms different from the bare GPL. Their differing terms include the "Redistribution" section and their Forum Selection Clause of their additional wrighting: the Access Agreement.
You, a stupid white working class piece of shit, believe that simply resisting the urge to print out the GPL and then pen in your additions on that particular piece of paper, and instead pen in your additions on a subsequent piece of paper, absolves you from adhering to the Copyright owners proclaimations regarding their work.
Additionally Grsecurity has violated section 6 aswell by constructively restraining redistribution to third parties.
>6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
He doesn't have a license anymore. He doesn't have /permission/ (what a license is) any longer.
------
>>3149966
>Once again, you are not a judge (or a lawyer)
Explain my attorney secure pass and my bar association membership card, you fucking white wageslave piece of filth.
You don't even understand why I say "This is a case of first impression". You are asking for rulings on the GPL, when no one sues regarding the GPL: So how could there be a ruling when it's almost never brought to court? Stupid fucking idiot. But in your mind that means it could never be adjudicated. You are a stupid piece of filth.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12485
>>3149966
No citations.... we all know what that means....
>NCR Corp. v. ATM Exchange, Inc., 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1216, 2006 WL 1401635, *4 (S.D. Ohio 2006)
> >(A final product can be considered infringing even if it does not contain any of the original products's code, so long as it originated from infringing conduct)
Even if what you say would be so, as an independent action (or lack thereof), since it relates back to an infringing act: it itself is a continuation thereof
Grsecurity added additional terms while modifying/distributing the work; the infringing action (forbidden by section 4 of the GPLv2 copyright license).
>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 1995)
Once one has notification of infringement, if one does not then take steps in one's power to mitigate said infringement: one is liable for contributory infringement.
Here the Grsecurity customers have been informed about Grsecurity's infringing acts. The necessary steps would be to stop using the infringing derivative in one's products, services, etc; and to stop purchasing Grsecurity's infringing derivative work.
>750 F.3d 1339 at 1380
Even copying declaring code, and overall structure and sequence and organization (SSO) without authorization is infingement of the software owner's copyright
>Oracle America, Inc. V. Google LLC. (2018)
Even unautorized use of programming APIs is copyright infringement.
>BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Cox Communications, Incorporated, (4th Cir. 2018)
permits the inference of a direct infingement claim using circumstantial evidence. (Ex: Grsecurity's access agreement, no one ever redistributing the patch subject to such -> inference of interferance in right granted in GPL (redistribution to 3rd parties) (violation of section 6 of GPLv2 copyright license)
>(... continued below)
-----
>>3149966
>(... continued from)
>RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc.
Creating a "plugin" that will run and alter the in-memory running application, is also prohibited without obeying the copyright owners instructions and limitations, and creates a prohibited derivative.
Here Grsecurity lacks authorization to create derivatives while also imposing additional terms of it's own when modifying/distributing/etc the Work (Section 4 of the copyright license (GPL v2)).
https://boards.4channel.org/qa/thread/3144510
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12487
> >>3150040
>you are a cirnoposter
>your argument is invalid
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12488
>>3150010
>>delusional ramblings
>You are yet to show a case where a license for distribution or support was ruled to be violating GPL. Brad is not the first or the last doing it and they are all in compliance with GPLv2. Pound sand all you want: that is what is happening.
>
>>RedHat is violating the GPLv2 license
>BS like this tells us you are not a lawyer.
>
>>You don't even understand why I say "This is a case of first impression". (...) But in your mind that means it could never be adjudicated.
>It seems you don't understand how it works. You cannot declare something true citing "case of first impression" as an argument. Sure, it can be adjudicated, but not by you. You are not a judge (or a lawyer).
>
>PSA: do not pay for grsecurity. It is a scam and is using harassment as an advertisement campaign.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12489
>>3150092
>>RedHat is violating the GPLv2 license
>BS like this tells us you are not a lawyer.
You built up a strawman and I knocked it down, now you complain you fucking piece of filth.
If RedHat, when modifying/distributing/sublicensing a GPLed work it does not fully own the copyright to, adds additional terms not within the 4 corners of the GPL: then yes: it is violating the Copyright of the owners of the work.
You can claim they aren't all you want. They are under the Fact Pattern you gave me. However in that case since they redistribute their souce code: which is what the other Copyright owners are interested in: the other Copyright owners see the issue as moot: they got the source code: they are happy.
>It seems you don't understand how it works. You cannot declare something true citing "case of first impression" as an argument. Sure, it can be adjudicated, but not by you. You are not a judge (or a lawyer).
You claim that because a similar case has not occured yet that I cannot speak on the issue.
I AM A LAWYER: FUCK YOU.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12490
>>3150092
>You are yet to show a case where a license for distribution or support was ruled to be violating GPL. Brad is not the first or the last doing it and they are all in compliance with GPLv2. Pound sand all you want: that is what is happening.
I hope that you are killed. I pray to YHWH that you are killed in a painful way.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12491
>>3150092
>>delusional ramblings
>You are yet to show a case where a license for distribution or support was ruled to be violating GPL. Brad is not the first or the last doing it and they are all in compliance with GPLv2. Pound sand all you want: that is what is happening.
Bradly Spengler IS the first to prohibit redistribution of the source code when he is not distributing it publicly himself.
>4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
>Except as EXPRESSLY provided under this License.
>EXPRESSLY
>provided
>under
>this
>License.
>EXPRESSLY
>EXPRESSLY
>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY
>EXPRESSLY
>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY
>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY>EXPRESSLY
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12492
>>3150092
>you are not a lawyer.
Explain my attorney secure pass and my bar association membership card, you fucking white wageslave piece of filth.
>>3150092
>It seems you don't understand how it works. You cannot declare something true citing "case of first impression" as an argument. Sure, it can be adjudicated, but not by you. You are not a judge (or a lawyer).
I really think, you, as a person, should be tortured until you are dead. That's just my opinion however. I can look at a fact pattern and analyse it against the law and jusrisprudence.
You say I can't. I hate you and I wish that your arms and legs would be sawn off and you set on fire.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12493
>>3150092
Again, zero case citations.
>NCR Corp. v. ATM Exchange, Inc., 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1216, 2006 WL 1401635, *4 (S.D. Ohio 2006)
> >(A final product can be considered infringing even if it does not contain any of the original products's code, so long as it originated from infringing conduct)
Even if what you say would be so, as an independent action (or lack thereof), since it relates back to an infringing act: it itself is a continuation thereof
Grsecurity added additional terms while modifying/distributing the work; the infringing action (forbidden by section 4 of the GPLv2 copyright license).
>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 1995)
Once one has notification of infringement, if one does not then take steps in one's power to mitigate said infringement: one is liable for contributory infringement.
Here the Grsecurity customers have been informed about Grsecurity's infringing acts. The necessary steps would be to stop using the infringing derivative in one's products, services, etc; and to stop purchasing Grsecurity's infringing derivative work.
>750 F.3d 1339 at 1380
Even copying declaring code, and overall structure and sequence and organization (SSO) without authorization is infingement of the software owner's copyright
>Oracle America, Inc. V. Google LLC. (2018)
Even unautorized use of programming APIs is copyright infringement.
>BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Cox Communications, Incorporated, (4th Cir. 2018)
permits the inference of a direct infingement claim using circumstantial evidence. (Ex: Grsecurity's access agreement, no one ever redistributing the patch subject to such -> inference of interferance in right granted in GPL (redistribution to 3rd parties) (violation of section 6 of GPLv2 copyright license)
>(... continued below)
----
>>3150092
>(... continued from)
>RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc.
Creating a "plugin" that will run and alter the in-memory running application, is also prohibited without obeying the copyright owners instructions and limitations, and creates a prohibited derivative.
Here Grsecurity lacks authorization to create derivatives while also imposing additional terms of it's own when modifying/distributing/etc the Work (Section 4 of the copyright license (GPL v2)).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12499
>Subject: RMS can claw back aspects of his GCC copyrights , then have standing to sue violators. (such as Grsecurity)
Since the structure and organization of a programme is Copyrightable
>750 F.3d 1339 at 1380
And RMS set down said structure and organization of GCC, being the
Author of said such programme (of the computational sort), quite some
many moons ago. In the 80s.
And the Copyright Act has a statutory claw-back provision(+) for Authors
to regain their copyrights, regardless of whatsoever contract or
conveyyance they have used to indeed alienate that copyright from
themselves.(++)
>+ 17 U.S. Code §203
>+ (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; ...
>++ Milne ex Rel. Coyne v. Stephen Slesinger 430 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2005)
And that statutory claw-back time period is fast approaching.
It is UNTRUE that RMS can do nothing because the FSF owns the GCC
copyrights.
RMS can execute the following plan of action:
Understand that the structure and organization of a programme is a
copyrightable aspect. Understand that HE is indeed the Author of that
aspect. Understand that ifsoever anyone else in the world Copied that
aspect of GCC, they indeed would implicate the GCC copyrights: they
would have to follow the GCC copyright owners instructions regarding
licensing so on and so forth.
Understand that he still is the Author of that aspect, that
copyrightable piece, of GCC, ever as ethereal or as concrete as it may
be.
Understand that he can recover the copyright to that aspect of GCC
using the aformentioned statutory provision.
Then He would have Standing to sue Violators.
HE would then, again, be a Copyright Lord.
All it takes is the will to do it. It's right there; asking to be
grasped.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12528
>>12499
I can't tell which is more broken at this point, tor browser bundle's shitty new rust-powered diversity-enhanced faggotry or 8kun. I don't even know if this message will fucking come through at this point, though I'm hoping fourth try's the charm. I just want to thank you for fighting the good fight against these malevolently stupid fucks. I may not completely agree with all of the views you express (though I'm definitely starting to agree with the white people one given how damn many of the evil fucks doing real damage seem to be white, even if often being manipulated/willingly working for the kikes) but you are the only person I see actually consistently trying, and I damn-well respect that. If I had any clue about legal matters I'd try to help too but between that and being a stereotypical autistic programmer neet with next to no real social skills I think I'd do more harm than good.
Sage because this is completely off topic, but again, thank you for at least trying when everyone else has just given up and instead chosen to watch as linux dies to the same corporate cancer killing everything else.
Also to any of the lkml automatons that read this thread? Fuck you. Fuck you for ruining something that was beautiful. Shame on you for defiling something pure. For shitting upon computer science. For raping a project that should have been a fucking beacon of hope for computer technology. May you burn in hell for this crime against both art, science, and the testament to human creativity and passion that is the linux project. Yes I'm being cringy and raving about more than just the way you filthy fucking cunts are blatantly ignoring this massive GPL violation, but between watching the fucking world burn, everything shutting down and collapsing, the internet turning into a fucking corporate advertisement platform, and every last fucking thing I've had hope for crumble to dust I think I'm entitled at this point to be a little melodramatic.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12529
>>12528
correction: was. The linux project is no longer a testament to anything other than how mandated diversity and tolerance is cancer and ruins literally every fucking thing that it touches.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12645
>>12027
>Why are these free-software people such fucking FAGGOTS that WONT SUE?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12655
<this whole thread
BSDfags would just laugh. OpenBSD probably has better security than this by default.
You're all niggers. Terry would be ashamed of you.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.