I told you this would happen, you all said it wouldn't, I assured you he would go full commercial within a year. He did. --MikeeUSA
GRSecurity removes public testing patch - goes full commercial.
http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/06/04/24
>"Don't worry about it, there's nothing for a "grateful" user like yourself
>to download anymore. Boy, if I had more "grateful" users like yourself
>obsessed with harrassing us on Twitter, Reddit, and IRC so that they
>can go around and paint themselves as some kind of victim, I wouldn't
>know what to do with myself.
>
>-Brad"
The solution?
As I said before, Copyright licenses (like any license) are freely revocable unless barred by estoppel. The GPL v2 lacks a no-revocation clause thus estoppel would be more difficult to argue (additonally none of the "agreeing parties" have ever met each other).
GrSecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel, it is non-seperable: it wholly relies on the linux kernel source code to work.
The linux kernel is not under joint copyright, it is simply a collection of derivative work upon derivative work.
The solution is for one or many of the rightsholders to the code GRSecurity is derived from/ modifies to rescind Brad Spengler's license to use or modify their code.
Brad no longer contributes to us. This is his stab at us all. Stab back.
Addionally there were third parties who contributed to the GRSecurity code base when it was publically distributed.
Brad Spengler prevents a private purchaser from redistributing the sourcecode via contract clauses between him and they: thus willfully frustrating the purpose of the license HE was granted by the linux kernel rightsholders. This is another reason a court may find him in violation of the license grant of the GPL. As we discussed previously.
Also Brad Spengler threatens others with lawsuit in a nearly transparent attempt to get them to stop porting over the work:
>" This stops *now* or I'm sending lawyers after you and
>hey I made some free shit
>yeah it's completely free I don't give a shit what you do with it
>NO NO NO YOU CAN'T SELL IT YOU HAVE TO SHARE IT
or we could just wait for KSPP to finish making them irrelevant.
>>60815403
yeah if they could ever figure out how to use the grsec code
>>60815302
>hey I made some free shit
>yeah it's completely free I don't give a shit what you do with it
>NO NO NO YOU CAN'T SELL MY WORK AND TAKE ALL THE MONEY YOU ASSHAT, ASK FOR PERMISSION FIRST
>>60815447
if another dev team of competent people can't figure out how to integrate, modify, and maintain the code, then it's bad code, and ought to be thrown out.
>>60815302
You can buy a subscription and get access to the source code again, and if you share the source code as per the GPLv2, you get banned and your subscription is revoked.
So this basically violates the terms of the GPLv2.
There's no mental gymnastics, this is a clear and blatant GPL violation.
>>60816181
put it in torrent trackers so they don't know who's leaking it
Theme song for this made today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYnhI3wUej8
>>60816181
Can someone contact RMS and inform him of what's going on, and maybe the Linux kernel contributors who's code GRSec's touches, aswell as Intel etc?
He's pulled his contributions, he's no friend of ours any longer.
>>60816181
Lay proud white men with grit and who hate the book of deuteronomy claimed in the last thread that frustrating the purpose of an agreement is just fine and I have no idea what I was talking about and should that I should be killed.