From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752794AbdFOQeb (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:34:31 -0400 Received: from cock.li ([185.100.85.212]:33426 "EHLO cock.li" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751955AbdFOQds (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:33:48 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:33:46 +0000 From: aconcernedfossdev@airmail.cc To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? In-Reply-To: References: <20170615154334.GA786@kroah.com> <2313e2cf12f1cec8edb1b9f27928bc80@airmail.cc> <20170615182504.640de5f0@utnubu> Message-ID: User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From a legal standpoint the pulling of the public patches is significant. Before then there was a cause of action due to the imposition of an additional term, but since the rights-holders could still access the derivative work it may have been a moot point to them. Now that additional no-redistribution term imposition DOES affect the rights-holders. Big development. On 2017-06-15 16:25, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:50:45 +0200, Liam Proven wrote: >> Meanwhile, please keep your anonymous ad-hom attacks off support or >> development mailing lists. They are not welcome here. > > Hi, > > they are less appropiate on users mailing list that aren't for general > discussions, so theoretically the better place would be Ubuntu > devel discuss. > ^^^^^^^ > >> On 2017-06-15 15:43, Greg KH wrote: >>> If you feel that what they are doing is somehow violating your >>> copyright on the Linux kernel, then you have the right to take legal >>> action if you so desire. To tell others what to do, however, is not >>> something that usually gets you very far in the world. > > The above reply says it all. > > The discontinued GRSecurity issue isn't new, for example take a look at > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2017-April/043604.html > . > New to me is just somebody complaining about a possible legal issue. > > IIRC on Ubuntu AppArmor is the default, it's a MAC implementation. > > I neither know if AppArmor or something similar could be considered a > replacement for GRSecurity, nor if there is a legal issue with > discontinuing GRSecurity for free, but I didn't heard of a legal issue > before. > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:34:06 +0000, aconcernedfossdev@airmail.cc wrote: >> Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly >> violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? > > I don't care at all about GRSecurity, so why should I care about a > possible and very unlikely legal issue? I suspect that if there would > be > a legal issue, there already would have been many concerns on other > mailing lists. I didn't notice such concerns. > > Cross-posting, top posting and the tone of voice are not as good as > providing links to serious concerns. > > Regards, > Ralf