(No matter _WHAT_ I say, the programmers say I'm wrong)
>>3148358
>No case citations.
Keep shilling your bullshit. Grsecurity is violating the copyright on the linux kernel and GCC.
>Your whole premise is based on this one weak point. In reality, no additional terms are added to the GPL, as access agreement is separate from the program and covers only access to the paid download page, which is allowed by the GPL.
You are a stupid fuck. The Copyright license governs all use of the copyrighted work. The Copyright license doesn't ban "adding terms to the Copyright license text", it bans adding terms BETWEEN the licensing parties.
Which Grsecurity is doing.
It bans that forum selection clause too.
When Grsecurity proffered all of those terms in the access agreement: the "Redistribution" term, the Forum Selection term, etc: EACH of those violates the Copyright license of the parent work. It is simply not allowed.
You are not allowed to say "I am distributing and modifying this Work, which is subject to the copyright of Parent Work, but for you, dear distributee, if you have a problem related to my Derivative Work of the Parent Work, You can only sue me in PA"
The Copyright license bans such an additional term between subject licensee and further-distributee. You can't add such a forum selection clause when modifying or distributing the derivative.
The Redistribution terms also add additional terms between the subject licensee and the further distributee. Both these terms violate section 4.
The Redistribution additional term violates section 6 of the Copyright license aswell.
----
>>3148358
>Being in the wrong sucks, huh?
I'm not wrong you piece of fucking garbage.
You are the one that thinks that the GPL copyright license bans "adding things to the license text". You fucking moron. You don't even know what a license is, you think the license is the memorandum.
The license is permission: it's ethereal: and it's memorialized in the license text. Adding additional terms between you and the distributee on a seperate piece of paper...
YOU think that's fine and allowed.
You are a stupid fucking idiot.
>1. This does not constitute a "constructive restraint",
Yes it does.
>as they are still free to use their rights.
They are restrained from doing so by a fore-warned consequence. This is prior-restraint.
>You should really talk to a lawyer about this.
I am a lawyer.
----
>
> >>3148256
> > The access agreement itself is an additional term not included in the GPL.
> Your whole premise is based on this one weak point. In reality, no additional terms are added to the GPL, as access agreement is separate from the program and covers only access to the paid download page, which is allowed by the GPL.
>
> >You retain the rights to the PARENT work, but this cannot protect you regarding an INFRINGING work; which grsecurity is since
> >1) additional terms are added (no redistribution, forum selection clause)
> As grscam is distributed under unmodified GPL code, any Brad clients (aka suckers) are covered by the GPL. They can also distribute the scam to others, granting them the same GPL rights.
>
> >Because customers are afraid to have their access denied, which they rely on to keep from being hacked, they are induced never to use a right given to them by the original copyright holders. It is a constructive restraint, and is successful.
> 1. This does not constitute a "constructive restraint", as they are still free to use their rights. You should really talk to a lawyer about this.
> 2. grscam cannot keep you from being hacked. come on now, at least try to be plausible here
>
> >No matter how much I argue: I can't defeat these people.
> >They alway have a reason why Grsecurity is in the right:
> Being in the wrong sucks, huh?
>
> If you were really concerned about Free Software, you would buy the access yourself (or through a proxy), distribute the patches according to GPL and sue Brad for limiting your access. Of course we all know you are running an outrage advertisement campaign for him so that won't happen.