/g/ - Technology

>>12027

>I'm not part of the FSF anymore

Wait what? Since when?

>>12029

Since several months ago when one of his comments 'offended' an uppity sheboon.

>>12030

>Since several months ago when one of his comments 'offended' an uppity sheboon.

He's senile and doesn't give a fuck about going after violators anymore, he just wants to post "political messages" to his website.

He listens to a faggot "technologist" over lawyers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct-yUg0oUww

>18-15189 Open Source Security, Inc. v. Bruce Perens

What the Judges are thinking in this video, looking at their body language is:

1) Why is there an Subcontinental fuck infront of us as a lawyer?

(sorry, that seems to be what they're thinking)

2) These female lawyers are much better.

3) How is saying that this license text of "no additional restrictions" clashes with the OSS addition of additional terms that restrict redistribution... a ... lie? Please explain?

Ask RMS where his balls went:

rms@gnu.org

Demand he spearhead action against the GPL violators, weather his new-found limpwristedness compells him or not.

I've been emailing RMS about this Grsecurity GCC and Linux kernel violation issue. RMS feels that "nothing can be done" about Grsecurity. "We decided that" because Bradly Kuhn (who is not a lawyer) said so. This is pathetic, and bullshit.

The GPL has teeth, but they're not attached to a jaw.

Dear RMS; If you don't want to defend free software in the courts anymore, if you don't want to be involved at all, maybe you need to make an announcement. People still look up to you as "the head", but if you want to be an "old decrepit man with no drive" now... you need to tell everyone about your retirement.

This "we can't do anything" thought is complete bullshit from Bradly Kuhn, and whatever other morons you're hanging out with these days: it does NOT come from ANY ip lawyers. You have a good case on the GCC side, and the linux kernel copyright holders have a great case, atleast on the law (now on recovery...)

You can nail these people (Grsecurity) to a pillar.

But you won't encourage that.

You've sold the GPL dream down the BSD river. Why? Because some women complained about your opinions? This is pathetic, get some testosterone injections and fight.

What are you afraid of? Grsecurity suing you for libel too? They are blatantly violating the GPL. Section 6 and section 4. They are both civilly liable for damages, and (since they've made over 1k off of their direct copyright infringement) criminally liable. That is: Bradly spengler aswell as those assisting him.

Why should any of us (mostly men) programmers have anything to do with Free Software if YOU will not bear your teeth once in awhile and force compliance with the license you have asked us to use: to put fear into those who would otherwise violate it and bar us from the full fruits of our programmatic efforts?

Tell me that? Or do you just not care if men contribute to Free Software anymore: You think the women will do this hobby for free like the men have? They won't. You're living in a dreamworld if you think otherwise (men fall in love with engineering; that's why they're willing to do it for free). The same dreamworld where you listen to the likes of Bradly Kuhn, even now, a completely unqualified individual who always tryst to STYMIE and SLOWDOWN any legal action this past half decade (or more).

I can't believe 1) some woman complaining and 2) Grsecurity's libel-lawsuit threats have shut you up, taken you down, and ended Free Software (the share-and-share-alike strain). But that's what has happened.

Grsecurity has gotten away with it, every other company knows it, they are BLATANTLY violating section 6 and 4 (of v2 of the GPL), EVERYONE knows it, NOTHING will be done about it. GPL is BSD license, effectively, because the white male programmers are scumbag wimps who won't even SUE. They won't even _SUE_. It doesn't take any physical effort to sue. If you'd bother to register your copyrights lawyers would be happy to help you with getting those statutory damages.

This is... it's just beyond words. It's basically all a lie: everything you've claimed to others: because without enforcement the GPL and all it stands for, all you've campaigned for, is just ... well just as effective as this email.

With regret,

>>12027

>Why are these free-software people such fucking FAGGOTS that WONT SUE?

Only that particular fat autist is.

>>12039

>Only that particular fat autist is.

Show me other people that do sue.

Linus doesn't either. The 1000 linux copyright owners who could don't either (except the (printer driver?) guy, and he's hated by the rest of the _WHITE_ FAGGOTS)

>>74843476

>"You will not redistribute to non-customer 3rd parties"

Is an additional restriction not present in the GPL. (Violation of section 6)

It is also an additional term being added, not present in the GPL, on a modification of the Program. (Violation of section 4)

>"We will not do business with you if you redistribute to non-customer 3rd parties"

Is an enforcement clause of this new additional restriction, and this new additional term that the distributee is required to agree to inorder to recieve the derivative works (linux patch, GCC plugins, etc).

>"We also will not refund your remainder"

Is another enforcement term. IE: 'We're keeping your money, that for-which you have not recieved anything for yet: as additional penalization for redistributing our property against our express terms not to"

Yes: GRSecurity is BLATANTLY violating section 6 and section 4 of the GPL.

They are liable for both civil and criminal penalties (having made more than 1k in revenue from this direct infringement). Those who have assisted in creating the scheme are liable for contributory and vicarious infringement.

>>74843666

>Grsec is not violating the GPL.

Grsecurity is violating the Copyright of the Linux kernel and of GCC.

>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.

>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.

Grsecurity is modifying, distributing, and sublicensing the Program under terms NOT expressly provided under "this License"

It has placed thos term, which are not expressly provided under "this License" in it's access agreement:

>https://perens.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/06/grsecstablepatchaccessagreement_additionalterms.pdf

This is one of the terms that Grsecurity has the distributee agree to, which is not expressly provided under "this License":

>Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that redistribution 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.

What does notwithstanding mean?

> Notwithstanding \Not`with*stand"ing\, prep.

> Without prevention, or obstruction from or by; in spite of.

IE: "In spite of, the previously mentioned disclaimer, you will not redistribute the Program, or else"

>>74844202

No, on distribution there cannot be any additional terms regarding the subject work.

>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.

>>74844210

>Future updates are not the program.

Grsecurity has created a non-seperable derivative work of the linux kernel, and GCC plugins, which are also derivative works of GCC.

The Copyright owners have elected to distribute their works at no cost, under no contract, under a simple copyright license. Grsecurity gives them nothing, they have no relationship with eachother, no consideration was paid to the copyright owners.

The Copyright owners dictate how their property may be used. They can revoke this permission at any time, except from those who have a contract with them (paid licenses etc). Grsecurity is not such an entity.

The Copyright owners have given the following instructions, which are applicable to both those using the work under copyright license (gratis), and also those who have a copyright license contract (paid):

>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.

Grsecurity patch is a modification of the linux kernel (Program), which is being distributed, but under terms that go beyond those expressly provided under the License.

>>74844202

>>74844210

>>74844252 (You)

The Copyright Owners have also included this clause:

>>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.

In this section:

>You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

Is at issue. One of the "rights" (really: permissions) recipients have been extended by the Copyright owners of the Linux kernel and of GCC is to redistribute the Program freely.

However, Grsecurity has elected to limit this "right":

>Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that redistribution 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.

> Notwithstanding \Not`with*stand"ing\, prep.

> Without prevention, or obstruction from or by; in spite of.

IE: "In spite of, the previously mentioned disclaimer, you will not redistribute the Program, or else"

Yes: Grsecurity has added an additional term outside of the GPL, between it and distributees, in violation of section 4. Additionally this term is constructivly a restriction, in violation of section 6.

Additionally, the Copyright holders may terminate Grsecurity's license for ANY or NO reason; Grsecurity does not have contractual rights in opposition to the Copyright holder since no bargained-for consideration was exchanged and thus no contract is in existence.

>>12035

>white male programmers are scumbag wimps

>>12056

>_WHITE_ FAGGOTS

>>12057

>white-man idiot

>>12057

>(white-man/american) software developers are weak feckless scum

>>12057

>White-men are _scum_

Go fuck yourself, Gupta, you street-shitting faggot.

>>12064

Not Gupta, that's the grsec lawyer who is, I'm just significantly Irish: and I /recognize/ that Irish aren't white.

(Irish are dogs)

See all the fur on my hands:

>>12028

>>12064

Refute the points you quoted.

>>74847424

>The only people whose (dis)agreement actually matters are judges. As in, shitposting online and demonstrating butthurtness just makes your side look anemic and argument-less.

I have presented my arguments using copyright law, all your side presents is "Grsec is not violating the GPL", "we can do whatever we want if we frame it as a future occurance, including ignore the licensing terms of the copyrighted work we are creating a non-seperable derivative of"

You have zero legally valid arguments. Your opinion is that since "businessmen can do business with whom they please" that you can take some other person's copyrighted work, ignore the license term that says you may NOT add ANY terms not within the GPL to an agreement between you and the distributee when distributing or modifying the work, ignore the license term that says you may not add ANY additional restrictions on the distributee that are not found within the license.

"businessmen can do business as they please" when it is regarding something that they own: and Copyright owners can cancel the license of anyone who 1) doesn't have a contract with them AND/OR 2) violates the express conditions of the copyright license. So when you "do business as you wish" with "your" derivative work the copyright license you rely on to NOT be in violation of copyright law: is revoked automatically.

You cannot distribute that derivative work without permission by the copyright owner: and by ignoring the express provisions you have lost the license to do so (as stated in the GPL).

You are wasting your time preaching to a bunch of cucks on a basket weaving forum. I'd start contacting RedHat and GCC devs to get the ball rolling if I were you, but without advertising the pedo crap you did on LKML. Play it a little smarter than RMS and hopefully something big happens. Do give us updates though. I love it here.

>>12065

>just a regular belligerent potatonigger

Very well, carry on then.

The GPL contains no requirement to share code with everyone. GRSec has every right to decide who they are willing to make business with.

Stay on 4cuck pls.

>>12077

>The GPL contains no requirement to share code with everyone. GRSec has every right to decide who they are willing to make business with.

No they do not.

"businessmen can do business as they please" when it is regarding something that they own: and Copyright owners can cancel the license of anyone who 1) doesn't have a contract with them AND/OR 2) violates the express conditions of the copyright license. So when you "do business as you wish" with "your" derivative work the copyright license you rely on to NOT be in violation of copyright law: is revoked automatically.

You cannot distribute that derivative work without permission by the copyright owner: and by ignoring the express provisions you have lost the license to do so (as stated in the GPL).

>>>/g/74850570 →

>Nope buddy. I'm just a customer who actually likes this product. Some trolls have been framing the lead dev for alleged infringement but it has not been proven in the court of law.

I'm not a troll, I'm a licensed attorney.

> Used by hardened Gentoo and other delicate projects, these source-level patches save you from vulnerabilities that SELinux and AppArmor aren't designed to catch.

It is a good patch, linus is wrong to trash it on technical merits.

The author is also violating the copyright license blatantly. He should be sued and made an example of; so companies like his step far away from protected works. He should also perhaps be criminally prosecuted (he has made over 1000 dollars off of his direct infringement), along with his employees.

>>12077

>The GPL contains no requirement to share code with everyone

The GPL v2 forbids adding any terms not within the 4 corners of the license document when distributing, modifying, sublicensing the work. (section 4). Grsecurity is a non-seperable derivative work and cannot ignore this provision.

Grsecurity does, infact, include provisions that are not in the 4 corners of the license document when distributing/modifying/etc the work (their "access agreement"). Here they violate section 4 of the GPL simply by proffering those terms.

They ALSO violate section 6 by constructively limiting the distributees "right" to redistribute the work to 3rd party non-clients: a violation of the no-additional-restrictions clause (section 6).

They are violating the linux kernel and GCC copyrights in 2 ways. Not just one.

>>12077

>Stay on 4cuck pls.

No, go and FUCK yourself, PIECE OF SHIT.

>>12071

> I'd start contacting RedHat and GCC devs to get the ball rolling if I were you,

I've been talking to RMS. He agreed to take a look at things (3 years later).

>but without advertising the pedo crap you did on LKML.

Why? What's so bad about YHWH's pro-child bride laws? Convince me. Give your reasonings?

Could.. you perhaps contact Redhat? And the GCC folks? I mean it's like your asking the Black Hebrews not to street preach..

> Why? What's so bad about YHWH's pro-child bride laws? Convince me. Give your reasonings?

It's not my reasoning that matter, but YHWH's own words that you are misinterpreting or perhaps misrepresenting on purpose.

In Hebrew, "yeled" means boys age <12, while "Naˈar" young men. For females, "naˈarah" means “a marriageable woman” while "yaldah" refers to a girl child <11. In other words they must have finished puberty and be capable of bearing children.

The delay of marriage age to the age of 20s and 30s in the last century is another issue entirely has no Biblical basis. The Marriage Laws, culture and economic climate in Western society are deliberately crafted to curb stable families and any union that results in children, to halt overpopulation, destroy the White race or both.

Also, when you mention your unrelated views in statements about GRSec, it undermines the great arguments you make and repels anyone who should listen. It undermines very important work. It's self defeating.

> Could.. you perhaps contact Redhat? And the GCC folks? I mean it's like your asking the Black Hebrews not to street preach..

Deal, but I'll need your help collaborating on the emails because I am not a lawyer and not as articulate as you. I'll be happy to send them. What is an address I can contact you on?

>>12092

>Deal, but I'll need your help collaborating on the emails because I am not a lawyer and not as articulate as you. I'll be happy to send them. What is an address I can contact you on?

They know my wrighting style and will ignore anything that sounds like me. You may post your drafts here and perhaps I'll try to correct any glaring errors, but the copy must be from you.

I would rather you just send your complains and pleas to RMS, Redhat, ESR, Bruce Perens directly though. I've been trying to get grsecurity sued for 3 years. Obviously no one is ever going to listen to me alone.

The FSF does NOT want to sue ANYONE: which is one reason why they ejected RMS. Same with every other "free software" organizations. They have all been captured by industry plants. It's a common tactic called regulatory capture.

>>12092

>Also, when you mention your unrelated views in statements about GRSec, it undermines the great arguments you make and repels anyone who should listen. It undermines very important work. It's self defeating.

Incorrect, what undermines the "work" is the fact that those in position to sue do not want to enforce the copyright license at all. All the true believers in reciprocal licenses have been removed from their positions. They have been replaced by people who will do nothing. The people who would do something are advised by "do nothing" advisors (not actual lawyers who would work in the interest of the copyright holder).

I notice lwn.net doesn't run any stories on Grsec anymore: they're fearful faggots afraid of a libel suit.

Shame they aren't brutally beaten everyday as they walk to "work": recognized by "The People" as weak pieces of shit: cowering.

LKML asked why they won't sue:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/2/23/18

> In Devarim chapter 22, verse 28

The verse is about what to do in a bad situation not a directive encouraging it as you are eager to paint it. It's about a man raping a child. It's rape because there's no consent possible.

> Nachmanides points out that a child may be called na'ar from the moment he is born.

You're using a Talmudist as an authority on your position. Are you a fucking kike Mikee? Even if you aren't, Judaizers are heretics in eyes of Christianity.

On 2020-02-23 14:39, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:

> Hello again,

>

> at least you are beginning to sound a bit more like being able to discuss

> something ;-)

> The thing about a lawyer (I learned you are) is that they judge the world

> according to lawsuits. You can learn from the history of my home country that

> laws and courts are no measure for moral and right behaviour.

> So my whole purpose of the thread is not to find out how the laws in the US

> are judging something. It is all about how _we_ (we meaning all the people

> contributing) are judging the issue. Do we really think that it is the right

> thing to do to prevent people from feature-extending linux (and distros) in

> general? The zfs case is special in that it is a simple "free license clash".

> Which means all involved parties agree on the free and open software

> principle, only the licenses (i.e. paper) disagree on the usage of it - to a

> certain extent. But lets not discuss legal details. In the end it all comes up

> to this simple question: what do we really want with the project?

> Because in the end even you have to agree that there is a whole lot more world

> outside the US. If people from other countries agree on something which gives

> a better performance in some area, then the US would be the last ones not to

> jump onto the train. Who can testify better than this project, not being

> native-US.

> Do we think it is illegal to call GPL code from non-GPL code? Yes or no,

> simple choice.

> Me, I don't think so. This is why I suggest we take down the barriers and

> walls for interaction. It should be obvious by now that there will be no

> non-gpl invasion taking place. Instead a non-ideological use of GPL may

> convince even more people that free and open software is a good concept and

> adds benefit to the world and does not _harm_ technological progress.

> Given, not many people think about this from ground up before releasing

> software on linux. This is probably the only reason why you can buy software

> for linux at all. And maybe, only maybe, the lawyers in your beloved case

> where too dumb to turn this case around and ask why the gpl linux software was

> forced to marry with the non-gpl real player (which is/was available

> for linux). According to this courts' point of view this must have been equally

> illegal.

> I mean it extended the gpl software with a new feature without checking for

> gpl compliance.

> As you can see the whole idea of the court in this case is broken. And it

> seems only because noone asked the right questions.

> --

> Regards,

> Stephan

>

You had one job free software movement, and you fucked it up. Because apparently gender politics and moral purity concerning sexual intercourse is what free software movement is all about. It isn't about software, why did anybody think that? Just because it has software in the name like Democratic Republic of North Korea has 'democratic' in it?

>>12136

>You had one job free software movement, and you fucked it up.

When RMS had a chance to enforce the GPL: he took it. He sued Cisco and got alot of money.

That is why the GPL was respected for a time.

Now when it's time for the white men to do the same: nope: never: were werkin' men and 'fraid 2 be 'blackballed if we sue to enforce our copyrights.

White men talk a big game: but they're just worker slaves.

>>12136

>moral purity concerning sexual intercourse is what free software movement is all about.

It's the white men who are anti-child bride, to the _core_. The white man is the one that worships the white wuuhman: putting a other power before YHWH. Feminism is from white christian societies: the operative word probably being white. White men have always been low-class scum woman worshiping slaves. They were 2000 years ago in germania (according to the Romans); they are now.

Mikee you sound like a white self-loathing cuck who wants "superior" sandniggers fucking their woman because they don't put them on a pedestal. Feminism is a product of socialism. Germania was pagan 2000 years ago.

> You are not to add nor take away from the Law (Devarim)

The law doesn't assign a positive value to rape.

> I also used the primary christian bible: the Septuagint: the bible that Jesus' disciples read from (they did not read from the hebrew).

Here is what Jesus' disciples had to say about pedophiles

Luke 17:2

"It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."

You are insufferable pedo rapist scum, and I am not here to convince you otherwise.

Mikee you sound like a white self-loathing cuck who wants "superior" sandniggers fucking their woman because they don't put them on a pedestal. Feminism is a product of socialism. Germania was pagan 2000 years ago.

> You are not to add nor take away from the Law (Devarim)

The law doesn't assign a positive value to rape.

> I also used the primary christian bible: the Septuagint: the bible that Jesus' disciples read from (they did not read from the hebrew).

Here is what Jesus' disciples had to say about pedophiles

Luke 17:2

"It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."

You are insufferable pedo rapist scum, and I am not here to convince you otherwise.

I'm guessing our guest won't be messaging RedHat et al about Grsecurity now ... probably can't separate things out due to his emotional beast-like mind" >>12092

>>12169

*fulminate

I'm following along on LKML. This is beginning to develop into a somewhat interesting discussion. I'm still not 100% certain what you're trying to achieve with the anti-white angle... is it that you want people to think you are a nigger to earn diversity points? Or perhaps a jew (the incidental talmud redpill dropped into the discussion was admirable)? Anyway, whatever... it's still interesting.

>>12169

>(2nd correction)

>*Regardless, YHWH allows men to rape female children, in

>>12172

In my years of speaking to "fellow whites" in life and online; I've found that the reasoning is always very similar: it is as the Romans noted: white men worship women. It's a core belief.

Additionally I have noticed that facts and emotion are inseparable to my "fellow" white men. You can direct white men simply by directing their emotions: and simply with words: they lose sight of the object of discussion and degenerate into and angry (and sometimes whining froth). It is similar to playing with a dog: kick something else out and they go chase that.

I find that Italians and muslims are much easier to have conversation with.

> In this passage, Jesus noticed that the Diciples were lording their position over the new believers, driving some away.

No they were comparing their tenacity of faith to one another. Jesus condemned their behavior as proud and advised them to be like "children". Here's the rest of the passage you conveniently gloss over because it doesn't fit your narrative:

"And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

> You have not addressed the Septuagint's use of the word Padia, from which you get paedophile (pedophile) (padia+philos), nor the Vulgate's use of the word Puella (young girl), and you've rejected ancient hebrew.

I have, it is an act of rape and fornication against a girl child. Doesn't end well for the transgressors:

Revelation 21:8

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

1 Corinthians 6:9

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts,

> Now if it is a match up between Jesus and YHWH: I choose YHWH.

There is no match. Jesus and his teachings abborogate Old Testament Laws in many areas, particularly sexual conduct. A man is allowed to marry one woman with no divorce. Any act outside marriage is fornication. Any during is adultery.

> In your protestant mind it is.

Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree.

> Irish aren't white, moron.

Whatever you say boss. That's why the biggest white identifying mutt bloc in the US is German-Irish. You have ethnic dysmorphia. Perhaps you think you are niggerish?

> Anyway, do you fault the blue-jay for recognizing that they sky is blue? White men are worthless woman worshiping scum who stand in the way of marrying cute young girls: like yourself.

You mean raping their toddler daughters? I'm sure most normal people of any race wouldn't like that either. You'd probably end up murdered or sent to the booty house where Jamal and Tyrone stretch out your rectum to shreds.

> Additionally I have noticed that facts and emotion are inseparable to my "fellow" white men. You can direct white men simply by directing their emotions: and simply with words: they lose sight of the object of discussion and degenerate into and angry (and sometimes whining froth). It is similar to playing with a dog: kick something else out and they go chase that.

I'm very amused actually.

> I'm guessing our guest won't be messaging RedHat et al about Grsecurity now

Still interested, but you brushed me off because it requires more serious effort than ad hominem trolling on LKML I guess. I don't care if you are worse than a dog, if license enforcement can be brought against OSS.

>>12176

>There is no match. Jesus and his teachings abborogate Old Testament Laws in many areas, particularly sexual conduct. A man is allowed to marry one woman with no divorce. Any act outside marriage is fornication. Any during is adultery.

I explicitly reject your Jesus then. My god is He who is. (YHWH).

>I have, it is an act of rape and fornication against a girl child. Doesn't end well for the transgressors:

YHWH explicitly allows men to rape female children: Devarim chapter 22, verse 28.

You have not addressed the Septuagint's use of the word Padia, from which you get paedophile (pedophile) (padia+philos), nor the Vulgate's use of the word Puella (young girl), and you've rejected ancient hebrew.

You have simply fully rejected YHWH's law now. Ignoring it. Such is not "addressing" His law. Which allows raping girl childen, in their father's houses, should they not yet be promised to someone, paying the father 50 silver, and keeping the girl.

YHWH allows men to have as many females as they wish. He also allows child brides. He says that anyone who entices us to follow another Power: Kill them.

Which is what you, and nearly all white men do. You should be killed.

The OT was not abrogated by him, however;

> Matthew 5:18

>For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.

>Hint: The earth is still here, and the heavens extend seemingly infinitely in all directions

(you will not address this, ofcourse)

>No they were comparing their tenacity of faith to one another. Jesus condemned their behavior as proud and advised them to be like "children". Here's the rest of the passage you conveniently gloss over because it doesn't fit your narrative:

Indeed, it has nothing to do with an anti-child bride agenda.

>Revelation 21:8

>But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

>1 Corinthians 6:9

>Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts,

Forcing female children into marraige is not sexual immoral. It places the man as ba'al (master) over the female: as YHWH intended (see: Devarim).

Placing the woman as equal or greater than the man is the practice of whites men, along with your idolatry of white women (the very reason you ban and persecute child marriage the world over: it is bad for your white women) You might as well worship lilith.

Having a girl child as a bride is not a homosexual act, though you white heretics claim otherwise.

You are my enemy, heretic.

>Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree.

You're a white christian. A protestant.

>> Anyway, do you fault the blue-jay for recognizing that they sky is blue? White men are worthless woman worshiping scum who stand in the way of marrying cute young girls: like yourself.

>You mean raping their toddler daughters? I'm sure most normal people of any race wouldn't like that either. You'd probably end up murdered or sent to the booty house where Jamal and Tyrone stretch out your rectum to shreds.

The note about the bluejay is that though he is himself blue; he can also make notes about his fellow blue thing: the sky. White men, like yourself, worship white women. You are heretic filth that reject YHWH's laws. You are my enemy and I wish for your destruction.

I would have you tortured to death if I could: since you are a heretic and reject YHWH's laws.

>Still interested, but you brushed me off because it requires more serious effort than ad hominem trolling on LKML I guess. I don't care if you are worse than a dog, if license enforcement can be brought against OSS.

I brush you off because it does not benefit me to do my work twice. "Hey I'll help with this... just... you write it all up!"

I can easily get my own alt-email and send more of my own emails from there. Infact I do that.

If you want to fight OSS: send your own emails. I am not going to do the work for you, enemy: because I am allready doing the work myself.

>more serious effort than ad hominem trolling on LKML

You seem to miss the part where I cite relevant case law, piece of shit.

I will pray that you are tortured to death.

>>12176

Confirms that he is not going to take any action against OSS, just as I said.

>Still interested, but you brushed me off because it requires more serious effort than ad hominem trolling on LKML I guess. I don't care if you are worse than a dog, if license enforcement can be brought against OSS.

"I'm still interested in you doing the work for me"

Ofcourse you are, white idiot. Can't even pen an email. Write your own, shithead.

How on earth are you faggots still going on about this.

>>12180

>How on earth are you faggots still going on about this.

About what? Marrying little girls? Grsecurity copyright violation? Polish Dev's proposed GPL violation?

There are three threads going on here?

For those desiring license enforcement, email Richard M. Stallman (rms@gnu.org) and Bruce Perens (bruce@perens.com). Let them know your concerns.

They're the only real-deal freesoftware people left.

I see white-supremacist anon has evaporated. Still can't refute the Septuagint's use of the word Padia, from which you get paedophile (pedophile) (padia+philos), nor the Vulgate's use of the word Puella (young girl), and you've rejected ancient hebrew.

What's a good alternative to grsecurity (if any)? I miss running grsec on a Hardened Gentoo install.

>>12215

Subhuman kike beast, end yourself.

>>12178

>>12179

>>12177

>>12176

>>12174

>>12169

>fellow

Stupid subhuman kike jew beast. Your "god" is just a desert spectre. Kill yourself.

>>12251

> Kill yourself.

How would that benifit me, stupid fucking white golem (golem of "MUHHH WHOUTE WUUHHHMAN"). Tell me how it would benefit me. GO on, shithead. Let's hear it. Oh, sorry, you exist only to serve, protect, and "PRUHVIDE" for "MUHHH WHOOITEEEE WUUHHHMAN"

Still can't refute the Septuagint's use of the word Padia, from which you get paedophile (pedophile) (padia+philos), nor the Vulgate's use of the word Puella (young girl), and you've rejected ancient hebrew.

>>12253

>>12254

I don't care about these things you braindead kike. I don't care about your disgusting talmud shit book. I'm not even the anon you were talking to at first.

>recommending netbsd

Get filled with backdoors.

And who fucking cares about the gpl pedo license. BSD is way better.

>>12255

>Using sage as a downvote

Back to reddit

>BSD

Everyone knows WTFPL is superior :^)

>>12255

>I don't care about these things you braindead kike. I don't care about your disgusting talmud shit book

Devarim is the 5th book of the "Old Testament", it is not part of the talmud. The Septuagint is the old greek translation of the "Old Testament".

Still can't refute the Septuagint's use of the word Padia, from which you get paedophile (pedophile) (padia+philos), nor the Vulgate's use of the word Puella (young girl), and you've rejected ancient hebrew.

1) This issue is 3 years old: you were president of the FSF then. You did nothing.

2) You can ask the FSF to sue.

3) You can, possibly, claw back your donations, including copyright assignments, from the FSF, if they were predicated on a promise or instruction that has been violated. You could make this case based on the constantly given reasoning for the donations: "so we can defend the copyrights in court"

4) FSF could be found to be a defunct charity, its assets distributed to similar more functioning charities.

You probably think of me as more of an enemy than Grsecurity is, because I am asking you to do something: while they ask you to do nothing and simply violate the copyright license.

You misrepresented to us how things would be RMS: You said you would enforce, thus induced the copyright assignments. You won't enforce; you won't even ask your friends at the FSF to enforce. I will mention the possibility of clawbacks to everyone when the discussion comes up. I did research this for another non-profit some time ago; it's possible to do (obviously takes a court case). The remedies are different in different states: for some you can clawback the donation itself, for others you are remunerated the value of the thing you donated.

You won't even speak on this issue. The most blatant public violation of this era. The GPL is totally dead without enforcement. Without a copyright suit per decade. You know this.

How is speaking to you about this "harassment"?

Go change your name and email address if you don't want to be the founder of your movement anymore, or publicly announce your resignation from the movement at large; or endorse the BSD license.

On 2020-02-28 02:58, Richard Stallman wrote:

> [[[ 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. ]]]

>

> I am no longer president of the FSF. I don't decide what it does.

> Please stop harassing me with useless pressure.

>>12271

This is a better tone. Less rabid potatonigger, more likely to actually achieve something.

>>12289

>This is a better tone. Less rabid potatonigger, more likely to actually achieve something.

This tone is for RMS, not LKML. LKML gets rabid potato-person-of-colour.

What about that copyright lawyer on youtube? The kikey looking one always wearing the stupid hats?

>>12320

>What about that copyright lawyer on youtube? The kikey looking one always wearing the stupid hats?

I don't follow? I read cases and hornbooks, I don't watch videos aimed at laypeople. Why are you asking me?

>Is RMS a senile idiot?

No shit lol, of course he is. He's been fucked in the head for longer than most millenials have been alive.

Any non-retarded person would tell the sheboons and libtards to take their SJW bullshit and shove it up their cloaca, but nu-men seem to revel in its shitterness.

>>12349

>Any non-retarded person would tell the sheboons and libtards to take their SJW bullshit and shove it up their cloaca, but nu-men seem to revel in its shitterness.

White men have always been this way. They like to fight against eachother for "muh whoute wuhhhman". It's the song of the history of America: white men fucking eachother over ostentatiously for "muh lady"

>>12349

>No shit lol, of course he is. He's been fucked in the head for longer than most millenials have been alive.

Do you inform him of your opinion at his email address? I notice the "political notes" still come as a torrent, but he won't speak about free software anymore.

There were only 3 political notes that were ever any good, and he recanted of them.

>>12027

Why didn't Harvey marry her?

https://boards.4channel.org/qa/thread/3144510

perens.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/06/grsecstablepatchaccessagreement_additionalterms.pdf

>>3145655

>Seems like there isn't one.

Wrong, see above.

If you want more background see: https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/

>OK, you convinced me. There is no GPL violation here, at least unless I'm missing something.

Yes there is a violation you stupid fucking idiot.

Read section 4+6

>>3145644

I want you to understand something, something that laypeople can't get through their heads often: The GPL copyright licenseing terms do not simply forbid adding to the license /text/piece-of-paper. They forbid adding additional terms when modifying/distributing the work at all. You can't "get around" this by "putting it in a seperate agreement" or not wrighting it at all and putting the additional terms in verbal agreement, or not even speaking at all on the additional terms but adding them in a course of business dealings (ie: punishing anyone who redistributes: thus making clear, without words, there is an additional understanding)

---

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.

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.

>>3145975

You are a stupid fucking piece of shit layman. A retard. A programmer retard.

First you have to understand, you stupid fuck, that grsecurity is a _non-seperable_ derivative work of the linux kernel (and their gcc plugins are _non-seperable_ derivative works of GCC). Do you understand what that is? No. Ok stupid fucking lay-man programmer moron.

Second you have to understand that, irregardless of how the derivative works are packaged, they are subject to the original copyright-owners copyright. Do you understand that? No. Ok stupid fuck.

Next you have to read the permissions that the copyright holders gave, and understand that nearly ANY use of the work OUTSIDE of those permissions is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Do you understand that?

Ok here are the relevant sections:

>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. 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.

>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.

Notice "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License."

Notice "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

https://perens.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/06/grsecstablepatchaccessagreement_additionalterms.pdf

>>3146012

There is no such consensus, you stupid fucking piece of shit: and even if there were it would be worth as much as your "DURRR I put the additional terms on a SEPARATE PIECE OF PAPER, so I'm good!!!" understanding of the law. Lay idiot retard.

>>3145644

>>3145655

Wrong, fuck nut, there is a blatant addition of terms and restrictions:

https://perens.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/06/grsecstablepatchaccessagreement_additionalterms.pdf

>>3145686

>So how are they violating the GPL?

By adding terms not expressly provided in the GPL, when they distribute/modify/etc the work: thus violating section 4.

By adding additional restrictions on GPL "rights" by constructively restraining the distributees from redistributing: thus violating section 6.

Fucking idiot.

>>3146147

I am a lawyer.

The copyright holders, of the Linux kernel et al, chose to forbid any business practices or understandings where ANY terms not then-existant in the license text were proffered.

It is their right to forbid such use of their copyrighted Work, and to control derivative Works in such a manner.

It does not matter if

>""Future" is even bold for your convenience:"

ANY terms not within the text of the license, when given during distribution, modification, etc cause the licensee to lose their permission to create derivative works at all.

Which grsecurity has done.

>This means restrictions do not apply to the program provided, meaning there is no GPL violation.

They clearly relate back to the Program, and the Derivative work (which is subject to the original copyright). The language clearly effects a constructive restraint on the ability of the distributee to use a "right" granted by the original copyright holder: this is a clear violation of section 6.

Yes there is a GPL violation. Two of them in fact.

>Please consult a lawyer if you do not understand this.

I am a lawyer.

>>3146080

>Put your dads ID away.

It's my ID.

>>3146147

You are a fucking retard.

>"DURRR I CAN VIOLATE THE COPYRIGHT LICENSE TERMS ASLONG AS I'M VIOLATING THEM IN THE //FUTURE//"

No you stupid piece of shit: the Access Agreement clearly exists to erect a constructive restraint on the ability of the distributee to redistribute the subject derivative work. It can be show to a court to additionally have been very successful in this endeavor.

Do you know what construction is, in law? Do you, fucking piece of shit.

https://boards.4channel.org/qa/thread/3144510

>>3146222

>This additional term does not limit

Additional terms, themselves, are forbidden by 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. 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.

Bradly Spengler's work is a non-separable derivative work of the Program. He has modified the Program while adding a term not " expressly provided under this License".

>Think of GPL as "all or nothing" sharing license. Brad is in his right not to share his scam "product" with you if he decides not to.

He has NO rights. ZERO. His "product" is NOT his own: since it is a derivative work that is non-seperable: thus the Copyright Owner of the derived work has the right and power to control the distribution of the derivative work. The Copyright Owner has chosen to not allow derivatives where the author of the derivative 1) Adds Any term not " expressly provided under this License" (such as the "Access Agreement") when modifying/distributing/sublicing etc.

No: he does NOT have the right to add the Access Agreement.

>You can still distribute the program you have received. You will not receive a different (later) version if you do, but this does not violate the GPL.

GPLv2:

>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.

(...)

>>3146222

(...)

https://perens.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/06/grsecstablepatchaccessagreement_additionalterms.pdf

>Stable Patch Access AgreementLast updated: 10/02/2016This Stable Patch Access Agreement ("Agreement") allows access to the stableversions of grsecurity® kernel patches. An authorized user includes theindividual(s) provided with login credentials directly by Open Source Security, Inc("the Company"). or others within the organization involved in the stable patchsubscription identified to Open Source Security, Inc. (collectively, "the User")ConfidentialityThe User agrees that the User is responsible for maintaining the confidentiality oftheir login credentials. Disclosure of these credentials is prohibited except asallowed by this agreement.RedistributionThe User has all rights and obligations granted by grsecurity's software license,version 2 of the GNU GPL. These rights and obligations are listed athttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html).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 (see the GPL FAQ here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#InternalDistribution(https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-(/index.php)grsecurityhttps://grsecurity.net/agree/agreement.php1 of 307/07/2017 10:28 PM

>faq.en.html#InternalDistribution)).If the User has received pricing for the stable patches on a specific product, useof the patches on additional products without the consent of the Company willresult in termination of access to future updates of grsecurity stable patchesand changelogs

>>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.

>>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.

>>12366

Because the milk was free.

>>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).

>>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"

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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).

>>12418

Why didn't he marry her when she was a little girl?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>12430

Most likely because that is illegal.

and the milk was still free.

>>12437

>>12438

Interesting.

>>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)

>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.

>>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?

> >>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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)).

>>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.

>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?

> 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.

----

>>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?

>>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?

>>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?

>>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.

>>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.

> >>3150040

>you are a cirnoposter

>your argument is invalid

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

>>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.

>>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)).

>>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.

>>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.

>>12027

>Why are these free-software people such fucking FAGGOTS that WONT SUE?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits

<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.