Re: [arch-general] Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity.

Re: [arch-general] Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity.

[nisus]

Thank you. When earlier I brought up latches when I started 
brainstorming the defenses GRSecurity might raise, Bruce Perens quickly 
dismissed me as a "fool".

https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/07/msg00830.html

> OK, I apologize to all who were involved in this conversation. I will
> block further emails from "aconcernedfossdev" and no longer encourage
> him.
> 
> Bruce


(Later after a third party's inquiry, Bruce made this admission:)

> The statement about Grsecurity still stands. Aconcernedfossdev was
> wasting my time with naive argument and I don't have to suffer fools
> gladly.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bruce

He also conflated my mentioning of the sometimes ongoing jailing of 
those found by the court to be in contempt for non-payment of civil 
debts to which the court feels the defendant has funds to pay and is 
simply holding out as me "conflating" criminal law with civil law.... 
and would not accept my answer as valid at all. I'm just a "fool".

I'm glad someone else recognizes the importance of recognizing the 
existence of potential procedural hurdles... and equitable defenses...

It angers me muchly that Bruce decided to libel me in this area simply 
because I started trying to anticipate the other side's moves once 
everyone understood that a cause of action existed.

On 2017-07-30 00:21, David C. Rankin wrote:
> On 07/29/2017 07:53 AM, nisus@redchan.it wrote:
>> ( NOTE: If you would like to read on how your copyright is being 
>> violated by
>> GRSecurity, Bruce Perens posted a good write-up on his web-page )
>> (
>> perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/
>>   )
>> ( There was also a discussion on the linux section of slashdot, and on 
>> the
>> debian user mailing list, and on the dng devuan mailing list and on 
>> the
>> openwall mailing list and the fedora legal mailing list )
> 
>   Paul Allen's concerns on LKML that if the GPL rights are not 
> asserted, then
> any future, or additional violations, by grsecurity could raise the 
> defenses
> of waiver or latches against future actions based upon a failure to 
> assert GPL
> rights here (while dubious, they become additional hurdles that must be
> responded to and overcome, regardless of their merit). Thread:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/29/128
> 
>   If you are a contributor, it makes sense to get in contact with 
> others
> similarly situated, and make sure you understand the competing issues, 
> the
> statute of limitations that apply, and the upside/downside to acting or
> failing to act. No, I'm not looking for clients either, but will 
> explore the
> issue and contribute to the extent needed. I've followed the earlier
> grsecurity threads on this list out of curiosity that something like 
> this may
> unfold.