From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753158AbdFOPKt (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:10:49 -0400 Received: from cock.li ([185.100.85.212]:56267 "EHLO cock.li" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753097AbdFOPKr (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:10:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:10:44 +0000 From: aconcernedfossdev@airmail.cc To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Why is everyone comfortable with GRSecurity violating the terms underwhich the Linux Kernel is licensed out? Message-ID: <5d7fee582288a239d6c70394e3ca3956@airmail.cc> User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Why is everyone comfortable with GRSecurity violating the terms underwhich the Linux Kernel is licensed out? They are preventing redistribution of their derivative work. The Law is not a Genie, it is not a computer, and Judges are not fools. The license grant the Linux Kernel is distributed under disallows the imposition of additional terms. The making of an understanding that the derivative work must not be redistributed (lest there be retaliation) is the imposition of an additional term. The communication of this threat is the moment that GRSecurity violates the license grant. Thence-forth modification, making of derivative works, and distribution of such is a violation of the Copyright statute. The concoction of the transparent scheme shows that it is a willful violation, one taken in full knowledge by GRSecurity of the intention of the original grantor.