"grsecurity didn't violate a single point of GPLv2"

>I do not believe
It does not matter what you believe. Your existence as a proud white programmer doesn't make you an expert on everything, though you may think it does. You may also believe that you can "control" a woman somehow when the police and state are opposed to you and anyone who can't is "weak" and it will be different for you because you are so smart you can convince her not to divorce you. Everything's fine. Only weak non-whites want to marry young girls instead of strong women like us white men who can take the challenge!

Take a read of the license, and take a read of the lengthily explanations, also learn some law.

And yes I am a Lawyer. And yes, your understanding is lacking.

GRSecurity has added a term not present in the license grant the Linux-Kernel owners have extended to GRSecurity to the the agreement between GRSecurity and those to whom it is distributing the derivative work. This is explicitly forbidden. The Linux-Kernel copyright owners forbid such behavior in their license upon pain of automatic revocation.

Argue all you want the other-way, I will likely not respond. If 5 pages of explanation aren't enough, then nothing can overcome the self-sure hubris.

>>61262709
As a white male, I wait for a hammer falls over grsecurity.

>>61262709
calm down pajeet

>>61262709
No clicks for you and nothing will change just because some people sperg out about it.
Here is 'something' for you: If big corps like MS, Apple or even stuff like Redhat doesn't care, the rest of the world won't either.

I run sys-kernel/hardened-sources and I'm really pissed what the grsec people are doing. I'm not a lawyer an can't understand their tricky lawyer speak, but I thought that essentially what they are doing is saying you can redistribute their patches but then they don't want to continue working to provide you support and new updates. And I guess they should have the right to discriminate and chose who they want to continue to work for to provide support and new features, they are not slaves. But I guess the people sounding the warning about this that if that where true then there would be all sorts of other undesirable implications in other areas, but I don't understand when it seems that you do have the right to redistribute the code but you may have to accept that they may not want to keep working for you.

>>61264613
They don't have to provide support, but the GPL does enslave then to provide updates and new features to everyone if they make them
Should had worked on FreeBSD with some proprietary licensing for their patches

>>61264746
>to provide updates and new features to everyone if they make them
Oh okay I think I understand so if they work on something new for a few people then they have to make that code available to everyone in other words a few people pay for the work but everyone gets access to the new code?

I have another question, isn't it possible to do work on GPL code on your own system and never give anyone else the code?

>>61264831
Technically you only have to make the code available to your customers. The issue is that grsec (and many others in the past with no issue) are trying to use contract law to stop their customers from distributing the code further.

Correct, if you don't distribute a binary made from gpl code you don't have to distribute the code.

>>61264959
>Technically you only have to make the code available to your customers. The issue is that grsec (and many others in the past with no issue) are trying to use contract law to stop their customers from distributing the code further.

Yes: that is an additional term.

Remeber the "thing" that exists between Linux-Distributors and those who Recieve Linux is the agreement. It is not "the GPL". The GPL (v2) are the __TERMS__ of the agreement and license.

The agreement states that if you distribute a derivative work you MUST distribute them under the SAME TERMS.

Handing someone a copy of the GPL and then saying "oh by the way if you do this and this we'll retaliate in this and this way" is NOT offering an agreement under the same terms.

Instead it is offering an agreement under the GPL PLUS ADDITIONAL TERMS.

This is something white men cannot understand. They do not understand conceptual things. They only understand that which physically exists.

This is because white men are stupid golems. That is why they are so easily controlled by white women and why they (the men) violently oppose their own interests.

Notice how all the people saying "nooo U R WRONG GRSECURITY IS FINE!" are
1) White Male
2) Opposed to men taking cute female children as brides
3) Hate the Old Testament Jewish God found in Deuteronomy

No surprise there..

>>61262709
>Yes they did, dipshit, as has been explained in the thread.
No they didn't.

Grsecurity team (allegedly, which I'm inclined to believe, since it sounds like a good business model for free software) signs a contract with the interested party.
They pay and they get the service which includes patches and support for it.
The interested party is free to distribute the patches further (with accord to GPLv2) and provide source for them to anyone they wish. Such action however breaks the (alleged but believable) rule of contract between grsecurity and aforementioned interested party.

There's nothing in GPLv2 (or any version) that prohibits Grsecurity from refusing to further cooperate with interested party once their contract was broken. They retain full GPL-enabled rights to the source code and software grsecurity provided them prior to grsecurity breaking cooperation.

There's nothing in GPLv2 that forces you to distribute your GPL-licensed work (and by that - code) to people you do not wish to.

>>61265079
>she

>>61265162
>white men are stupid golems
wat

>>61265172
>breaks the (alleged but believable) rule of contract between grsecurity and aforementioned interested party
Which is an additional restriction on the distribution GPL code. Putting a contract termination clause in the contract that triggers when the patches are redistributed is a specific incentive to discourage the exercise of the rights of the GPL.

>>61265438
>Which is an additional restriction on the distribution GPL code.
No it's fucking not.

You are granted FULL rights to modify and distribute whatever GPL licensed code you received from grsecurity and noone is able to sue you for executing these rights.
You are not granted any rights whatsoever to code you haven't received yet cause that would be fucking stupid.

>>61265490
Those are some Olympic level mental gymnastics to try to justify the termination of a contract as not being a punitive measure for exercising license rights.

>>61262709
Take your pills

>>61265594
Interstellar-level mental gymnastics are done by you just to defend multi-billion dollar corporations piggybacking on the work of a few people and expecting those few people to continue their work just so the jewing can last longer.

>>61265803
Here's a scenario where rights are very clearly violated:
>Company A is making a product. Let's say that is a POS terminal system powered by Linux. Since these systems will be remote managed, Company A decides to sign a contract for GRSecurity patches so they build more secure machines.
>Company A then sells a lot of 100 of these machines to Company B, a local grocery chain.
>Company B's IT department wants to audit the machines, so a request for the kernel sources is sent to Company A.
>Company A must now make the choice between refusing and violating the GPL and inviting a lawsuit or complying and violating their contract with GRSecurity and preventing any future updates to the POS terminals.
Can you now see how the contract termination is an implicit restriction on the exercise of the GPL?

>>61265861
Your scenario implies three things as absolute given

>grsecurity actually bullies it's clients into not redistributing source under threat of contract termination
Like I sad, so far it's only a believable allegation, not confirmed by grsecurity nor one of their clients.

>contract with grsecurity disallows sharing the source with your customer

>grsecurity is actually interested in cooperation with hardware vendors that want to sell grsecurity-enabled systems
I just don't see it as a thing since vendoring grsecurity-enabled embedded systems was what got grsecurity into the current state of things. I'm fairly sure they want to keep their customers as end users and not redistributors.

File: mpv-shot0001.jpg (134KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1280x720px

>>61266080
DAGA KOTOWARU

>>61266051
Then in that scenario, the restriction would just pass along to Company B in my scenario.
>4 essential freedoms
>0. Freedom to run the program as you wish.
>1. Freedom to study the source code of the program and then change it so the program does what you wish.
>2. Freedom to help your neighbour. That’s the freedom to redistribute the exact copies of the software when you wish.
>3. Freedom to contribute to your community. That’s the freedom to distribute copies or modified versions when you wish.

>>61266223
>Then in that scenario, the restriction would just pass along to Company B in my scenario.
In this scenario probably would qualify as a GPL violation.
That's why I suggested that embedded systems are not the customers grsecurity is interested in.

One of them spilling the beans on the contents of the contract will be decisive. But for that you have to sue them first. And the only reason Google/Intel and the rest of the corporate drones haven't done it already is they are not sure of it. Shouldn't that fact be food for thought?

>>61264831
Yes you're right. You can modify GPL code and never release it as long as you don't distribute the binary.

But I wouldn't know what exactly constitutes distribution, like if you distributed it internally in your company??

How did this girl get so pretty?

Post more anzu.

>>61265715
>when

>>61267437
> >tfw mindless drone that browses any board regardless of topics as long as there are pictures of qt3.14s

Na, even I recognize that grsecurity is violating the linux license right now, currently, not just speculatively merely in the future. (Unlike (SOME) "people" )

The reason why google et al are not suing grsecurity yet may possibly be because grsecurity only pulled the final trigger a month ago.

But back on topic: please post more Anzu. She is an adorable angel. So cute.

PS: adding barriers to further distribution of a GPLd work is a violation of the License.

The people who are saying otherwise are wrong and do not know the law at all.

They are lying to you and you should not listen to them.

If pages of explanation from lawyers aren't enough, plus additional pages from Bruce Perens, sorry you're hopeless or just working in furtherance of the interests of the opposition.

>>61262709
Question: does requiring a subscription for continued support and updates constitute an additional clause on the GPL?

Also, has the FSF chimed in on this yet?

>>61267536
it's more a matter of linux foundation and linus torvalds as copyright owner (or any linux kernel developer with code in mainline)

those have the legal power to do things in regard to GPL violation, for example suing.

the FSF can only say things like "they violating it, that's bad".

>revoking licence
How does this actually work? I never heard anyone doing it in regard to the GPL. Does a letter sufice?

Dear GrSecurity,

for violating the GPL your right to use any GPL'd code are now revoked.

It probably wont do anything unless a court agrees and orders them accordingly to stop using any code with GPL.

>>61272336
It's automatic upon violation. No letter is needed.

>all this SJW pastas
What the fuck is going on here?

>>61267150

see: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InternalDistribution

without having to refer to the gnu faq, the common sense approach to this question would be that corporations and companies typically own all of the computer hardware even if you are allowed to take, say, a work laptop home with you, and as a result they aren't distributing the software to your computer but to their internal computers

an important note is that if you intend to use gpl software at work the whole software has to be licensed under the gpl as far as the gpl requires it, if you use gpl software in proprietary programs and that program is ever sold or distributed (say, the company wants to sell their internal software or license it out) then that's a gpl violation and it comes back on you and/or the company in a legal case

another important note would be that if you are working internally with gpl software but are treating it psuedo-proprietary (i.e., not distributing it externally) while fully licensing it under the gpl then if that software is ever leaked then it's technically a valid gpl license and you can't do shit about losing your psuedo-proprietary software - the company might be able to take the leaker to court(for violating the terms with the company not with the gpl, see also company owns the hardware and generally what you write while you work on that hardware) but either way it's either going to end up with the software legally being licensed in gpl or that the software isn't legally gpl but this still is a gpl licence, what I'm getting at here with this point is that using gpl licensed software in your trade secret proprietary software isn't exactly intuitive

>>61267536
>Question: does requiring a subscription for continued support and updates constitute an additional clause on the GPL?

no, this is completely within the terms of the gpl

the issue here is that grsec *might* be placing stipulations that *might* be interpreted as additional restrictions upon the gpl (e.g., if you adhere to the terms of the gpl we'll stop doing business with you), while this might seem counter intuitive at first (they shouldn't be forced to do business with you after all) the gpl isn't compatible with having additional restrictions placed upon it, it's a license not a contract - of course as far as I know this is all hearsay, I don't actually know if grsec has stated these 'restrictions' in any official capacity or is part of any contract (and because grsec subscriptions aren't cheap, no customer has come out publicly to say if this is the case probably because they don't give a shit about edrama)

as an analogy, shops can refuse service to anyone and aren't required to give an explanation as to why, but discrimination laws means you can't explicitly deny service to certain subgroups, so in theory you can refuse service to blacks without issue if you don't explain why you're refusing service but if you put a sign up in the window that says "no blacks" you've violated discrimination laws (but as a note enjoy the court case when it becomes demonstrable that you're only refusing service to blacks)

>>61272336

they're not saying your access to gpl code is revoked, they *might* be saying that if you leak the latest grsec patches then they won't renew your subscription - you lose out on future grsec patches (unless somebody else leaks them of course)

>>61272336
I don't believe you're allowed to revoke someone's access to free software. The author can add a condition to prevent a particular person/entity from using the software but that would make it non-free which is frowned upon by the FSF and rms

>>61265172
>There's nothing in GPLv2 that forces you to distribute your GPL-licensed work (and by that - code) to people you do not wish to.
People who paid for the software and received a binary are entitled to the source code. If you don't want someone to redistribute your works you should probably not release under GPL in the first place

>>61273426

it's a false flag operation by OP to make foss advocates look like complete and utter raving lunatics

what grsec is doing may (emphasis on may, as in we don't even know if this is their official position as nobody has leaked contracts yet) be in a legally grey area but it's purely an intellectual property matter, identity politics has nothing to do with it, and nobody but OP is bringing it up

>>61274101
>People who paid for the software and received a binary are entitled to the source code.
and the right to redistribute it and any binary.

Forgot to add that part.