Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

[aconcernedfossdev]

 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

Re: [kernel-hardening] Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

[aconcernedfossdev]

The license under-which the linux kernel is distributed forbids, in it's 
text, the imposition of additional terms.

GRSecurity has, in-fact, successfully imposed a no-distribution term.
Even if it was a wink and a nod or an implicit threat the courts would 
not be blind to them. Additional terms can be made verbally or arise out 
of a course of business between a commercial entity and a client etc.

Additionally there is damage to the linux kernel rightsholders in that 
they have no access to the derivative work (unlike the RedHat situation 
where the kernel developers have the derived sourcecode so it's a moot 
point to them)

Courts deal in facts, not the fantasies of Proud, Resilient, Gritty, 
Battle Hardened, American White Male Programers (who know everything 
there is to know about everything, according to themselves (which is why 
they come up with these schemes and are /sure/ they will work))

It's a fairly clear cut blatant violation. Not really a grey-area at 
all.

On 2017-06-15 17:45, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 16:05 +0000, aconcernedfossdev@airmail.cc wrote:
>> > their customer restriction "you can redistribute
>> 
>> this code, but if you do we will on longer provide you
>> with updates" does not change that.
>> 
>> That is the imposition of an additional term, a court would not be 
>> amused by the programmers claim it's fine because he didn't ink it
>> into 
>> the copy of the license he distributed the code with. The court
>> would 
>> not be blind to the effect and the intention. The law has dealt with 
>> transparent schemes like this for hundreds of years, and within 
>> copyright for about a century (but much longer within contract law).
>> 
>> There should be a joint action.
> 
> I think the best action we can take is making
> grsecurity obsolete, by integrating all their
> functionality into the upstream kernel.
> 
> I don't think testing what a court thinks is
> a good idea here, because the GPL does not
> include any obligation to continue providing
> people with updates to the code.
> 
> The GPL may be much better off if that kind of
> thing continues to be a gray area that makes
> corporate lawyers nervous, rather than taking
> the chance that a court rules against the
> interests of GPL proponents...
> 
> Of course, I am not a lawyer, and if you want
> real lawyer advice you will need a real lawyer.

Re: Idle curiosity...

[aconcernedfossdev]

I'm not spamming anyone.
I am trying to:
1) Locate rights-holders to the linux kernel.
2) Inform them of very recent developments concerning their copyrighted 
work.
3) Inform them of their rights.

Many programmers operate under the false notion that the terms of a 
license can be circumvented by a third party using a second "out of 
band" communication or "clever" schemes. That as-long as the license 
document isn't altered, "all is well"; such is incorrect: that second 
communication is the imposition of an additional term, even if it is not 
in writing, even if it arises simply during the course of business (wink 
and a nod).

The courts will look to the effect, the dealings of the parties, their 
intentions, and not solely at whatever language resides within the four 
corners of the one page non-integrated document.

Now, I will assume that you do not have a legal background since you 
view discussions on the topic as some crime or personal affront...

On 2017-06-15 19:23, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
> Why are you being a fuckwad?  Instead of spamming the list, why don't
> you talk to -- oh, I dunno -- the FSF or someone who'd actually be
> able to listen to and/or address your questions?
> 
> Does it feed your ego to troll a whole list, or multiple lists?
> 
> I'm guessing yes.  And, yes, if it is your design to troll a list to
> feed your ego, you, sir, are a fuckwad, well and truly.
> 
> Good day, sir miscreant.

Fwd: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

[aconcernedfossdev]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is 
blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux 
Kernel?
Date: 2017-06-15 19:46
 From: aconcernedfossdev@airmail.cc
To: stacy@guppylog.com, "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general 
discussions" <ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com>

Keep digging that hole, Mrs Lockwood, I'm sure the court will look 
fondly on your most resent disparagement of my character.

> Bring it!
As you wish.

On 2017-06-15 19:16, W Stacy Lockwood wrote:
> Hahahaha! Bring it! Useless turd.
> 
> --
> W. Stacy Lockwood
> 
> stacy@guppylog.com
> 
> (847) 579-9753
> 
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:15 PM, <aconcernedfossdev@airmail.cc> wrote:
> 
>> The problem will be solved when you're sued for Libel, W. Stacy
>> Lockwood
>> 
>> On 2017-06-15 17:22, W Stacy Lockwood wrote:
>> Sounds like problem solved to me, then.
>> 
>> --
>> W. Stacy Lockwood
>> 
>> stacy@guppylog.com
>> 
>> (847) 579-9753 [1]
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Jonathan Hudson
>> <jh+ubuntu@daria.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:04:40 -0500, W Stacy Lockwood wrote:
>> 
>> Take this crap to LKML where ALL the kernel developers who matter,
>> are.
>> 
>> "Airmail is an invite-only E-mail server focused toward
>> professionals
>> and E-mail enthusiasts. To report abuse please E-mail
>> abuse@airmail.cc."
>> 
>> LKML appear to have already taken appropriate action.
>> 
>> --
>> ubuntu-users mailing list
>> ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users [2] [1]
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users [2]
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] tel:%28847%29%20579-9753
> [2] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

[aconcernedfossdev]

I'm just informing you that I am going to be filing a suit against you 
for
1) Putting my character a negative false light
2) Libel (communication to a third party a derogatory false statement)

Perhaps your employer will indemnify you Mrs Lockwood.

Thus; I will (as you requested) "bring it".

On 2017-06-15 19:47, W Stacy Lockwood wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:46 PM, <aconcernedfossdev@airmail.cc> wrote:
> 
>> Keep digging that hole, Mrs Lockwood, I'm sure the court will look
>> fondly on your most resent disparagement of my character.
>> 
>>> Bring it!
>> As you wish.
> 
> Seriously, shut up. Now.
> 
> Your email is no longer welcome in my inbox, and will be filtered.
> When people talk about bad actors in the Linux community, they're
> talking about people like you. Get some fucking help, you clearly need
> it.
> 
> --
> W. Stacy Lockwood
> 
> stacy@guppylog.com