https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/25/514
> Are you a lawyer,
Yes (also a programmer)
> acting on behalf of someone
No
> Sue to what end?
I wish I could say "to free the source", a court isn't going to order
specific performance where there is no contract, and there is no
contract between the Copyright owners and GRSec. Just a bare (and
revocable at will) license.
They could revoke if they didn't like Brad's face.
They can sue for damages (profits probably) since he violated the
license, and thus copyright (he would be more protected if he did have a
contract with the (C) owners: damages on his end would then more likely
simply be whatever he paid for the license)
> Force them to freely distribute their work/give up
> all those hours of backports/integration and actual invention?
I wish this were possible, but the GPL is not a contract in this
instance, so specific performance is not available. It's just a bare
license, you can get damages ($), that's all.
If the Copyright owners registered their copyrights prior to the
violation they could go for statutory damages and attorneys fees though.
So to what end...
Rage at GRSec getting off the opensource boat.
Anger at not having the security-code /slave/ we had for years.
Bellowing about how we are servants to our creed, and yet this
once-compatriot has betrayed that which we hold dear.
An attempt to use the GPL as a sword (instead of as a shield)?
Opensource works because men like being slaves. Slaves to their country,
slaves to women, slaves to an engineering field, slaves to a belief,
(and more recently: slaves to Codes of Conducts for hobby projects!).
Should not those who are still the slaves, rage against he who would use
their free labour and end his contributions back?
I think that is the entire point of "Copyleft". It's a way of getting
work that would cost millions of dollars, for free.
It works pretty well, up until 40 year old programmer has no stacy to
fuck, and no possibility of getting one.
But there's one last striving that can be done: one more needle prick
(or even knife gouge) that can be done against the escapee: and that is
a copyright lawsuit.
Since I cannot have my free leet secure kernel patch anymore... and no
one is out-in-the-open posting it in defiance of Brad (the escapee), I
would like one of the fellow slaves with standing - to sue him. In
vengeance for his betrayal of our class. They have a justiciable case,
evidence already in the hands of the courts (thanks to the libel case
(Thank you Bruce :D)).
What I really want is for GRSec to remain or return to being open and
free, like the GPL is supposed to provide.
On 2019-01-24 20:18, Boris Lukashev wrote:
> Sue to what end? Force them to freely distribute their work/give up
> all those hours of backports/integration and actual invention? The
> only thing a suit could achieve is to prevent them from doing any work
> at all as you cant force someone to work for free (in the US, under
> most circumstances). No contributor will be able to prove quantifiable
> material damages, and the outcomes are between destruction of the only
> Linux vendor who puts priority on security or a waste of money and
> time in the lawsuit. Only the lawyers benefit, everyone else loses out
> directly or indirectly. Are you a lawyer, acting on behalf of someone
> interested in slowing the progress of defensive technologies, or just
> miss the days when being as script kiddie made people feel powerful?
>