Grsecurity GPL Violations: Linus/FSF/SFConservancy won't defend. Claw back your copyrights. BSD-in-Practice was not the deal.

[nipponmail@firemail.cc]

Silence is consent.

> Are there FOSS developers making decent money via Patreon, GoFundMe, 
> whatever?

Yes, Grsecurity is making good money.
They simply added a no-redistribution agreement to their patch of the 
Linux Kernel.
>  ( 
> https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ 
> )


The FSF, Software Freedom Conservancy, and the Corporate Linux Kernel 
Developers all agree that this is fine (silence is consent).

> https://twitter.com/spendergrsec/status/1293155787859206146
> Importantly, neither the FSF nor the SFC, nor in fact any actual lawyer 
> agrees with this bizarre claim from an anonymous troll. More info about 
> the source of the claim can be found here: 
> https://grsecurity.net/setting_the_record_straight_on_oss_v_perens_part1
> Thanks for doing your part, "Dr" to continue the troll's harrassment

>> LOL. " #GRSecurity violates both the Linux kernel's copyright and the 
>> #GCC #copyright by forbidding redistribution of the patches (in their 
>> Access Agreement): which are non-seperable derivative works...


Contributors should blanket-revoke their contributions from all 
free-takers since they didn't agree to BSD-in-Practice. They should also 
claw-back any transferred copyrights from the FSF using the 30 year 
clawback provision in the US Copyright Act. Design of how a program 
works is a copyrightable aspect (Ex: How RMS designed GCC 30 years ago 
or so etc)

Had to repost this because the linux admins deleted the email:


> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/28/2518
> The message you requested cannot be found.
> The message you requested cannot be found. The message with the url 
> http://feisty.lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/28/2518 does not exist in the 
> database.

Grsecurity GPL Violations: Bring a CASE act claim every time GrSecurity 
releases a new infringing work?

     (GRSecurity blatantly violates the clause in the Linux kernel and 
GCC copyright licenses regarding adding addtional terms between the 
licensee of the kernel / gcc and furthur down-the-line licensees, 
regarding derivative works)
     (The linux kernel has 1000s of copyright holders)
     (All who shake at the knees at the thought of initiating a federal 
Copyright lawsuit)