GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute

So wait, they let you use it as long as you don't redistribute it, and as soon as you do they cut access to it?

I feel like writing an email to Stallman asking him about this.

Didnt mean to sage

Basically, yeah.

Their program is GPLv2 and thus they can't really force you not to distribute it. You paid for the program, and received a copy of it licensed under the GPLv2 with everything the GPLv2 entails, but you also got another contract saying "if you want to keep getting updates, you better do as we tell you".

You already got grsecurity v1.0, and you can treat is as any GPLv2 program, but grsecurity also promised to give you grsecurity v1.1 if you behave properly. If some partner were to leak grsecurity v1.0, nothing would really happen, but he would not get v1.1 because the GPLv2 (luckily) doesn't force you to provide updates to your users since it's a no warranty license. The contract the partner had with grsecurity was broken, and during the renewal stage, grsecurity can choose not to do it, which is also perfectly legal because I can not imagine how much of a nightmare would it be for companies to be forced to accept providing service to any client.

This is a dick move on grsecurity's side, but there are no barriers preventing them from doing so. The GPLv2 doesn't force the licenser not to threaten the licensee with clauses outside the GPL that affect future versions of the program.

Section 6 smells like it could be used against them, but if you think about it, the license only applies to the grsecurity version you bought. You are free to redistribute grsecurity vIPAIDFORTHISVERSION, but you are not entitled to grescurity vFUTUREVERSIONIHAVENTPAIDYET. Updates are really a courtesy/different contract from gresecurity's part, not a GPLv2 obligation.

Don't feel sad, tho. grescurity is shit anyway

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Sort of reminds me of review embargoes.

I find it ironic that a project, focused on security, would reap the benefits of the GPL to employ themselves, but wouldn't pass it on (perhaps for the fear that their job may be done better elsewhere). Given their track record of fucking melting down as a result of advice and criticsm, I think its safe to say that these people do not care about security at this point.

I sure love having vulnerabilities introduced by a patch and then have developers react violently to bug reports.

I mean, it's a useful tool, but you can get similar features from other programs not developed by spastic retards doing everything they can to fuck their own shit up.

To all that think this is all fine and dandy, but have not taken one semester of law but think you know it all because you read a one page document once. Here are some responses for you:

Correct
Correct.

Hmm so there is Licensor (Linux Devs), they place their copyrighted work out there, under conditions.

There is Licensee (Brad Spengler, Grsecurity), he takes the copyrighted work under the terms and conditions and creates a derivative work (not allowed under pure copyright, only permissible as per the will of the rightsholder, as stated in the agreement)

The license states that, for permission to create a derivative work, one must allow others who gain access to that derivative work to redistribute said work, modify it, so on and so forth (otherwise there is no permission under the agreement).

Licensee creates derivative work.

Licensee sublicenses derivative work to sublicensee. Licensee stipulates that sublicensee may not redistribute derivative work. Licensee makes threats to ensure compliance with this demand that sublicensee not distribute derivative work. These demands are met: sublicensee dares not redistribute the work.

The conditions the Licensor placed on his work have been spurned, ignored, and abolished by the actions of the licensee.

Licensee has frustrated the purpose of the grant he has been give by licensor. It does not matter specifically how he went about doing so. He did so.

So in other words you are saying "you can argue that Brad Spengler has treated the agreement in... bad faith". Thank you for restating a portion of my case, in inadvertently

"But JUDGE, bad faith, when it comes to business dealings, contracts, grants, and the like is fine and good!"

So have you attended law school and passed the bar?

I have.

There is a case.
Anyone who has taken 1 semester of torts and then casually leafed through a casebook on copyrights knows this.

You don't know this, that doesn't mean what you think is the law is: you are not trained even one day in the law. You are of the peanut gallery and should pipe down and keep your hands off the keyboard.

There is a legal term for this. It's called acting in bad faith.
That often gets your contract nullified.
Here there is a license grant. Spengler is acting in bad faith to frustrate its purpose.
It does not matter if he is breaking legs, threatening to expose secrets, or threatining to raise prices to exorbidant rates, or to cease sending the patches:
What matters is that his goal is to deny the sublicensee the right given to the sublicensee by the original licensor, and that he has obtained that goal via his actions (the threats here).

He has frustrated the purpose of the agreement (the grant) he had with the original licensor, and thus
the grant fails. In other words: he has violated the license.

It's very simple, I don't know why some here do not understand it, it's like you never graduated law school nor passed the bar.

The courts are not dumb, they've seen people try to be "clever" like this before for well over 100 years.
Just because some here have never heard of any of it doesn't mean what they then grind together their uneducated brain is correct (even though they will swear to high heaven it is, cuz it makes sence to them, centuries of caselaw and even black letter law be damned).

Oh shit, it's a Mikee thread. Abandon all hope of discussion outside of "I am a lawyer and you are not, therefore I'm right", "we should marry little children as the Leviticus say" and "I'm making a game called Chaosesque Anthology".

Hi Mike!

Over at endchan they are now arguing that a patch to the linux kernel, which cannot exist without the linux kernel, is not a derivative work!

> endchan.xyz/tech/res/4339.html

Now why does this fucking piece of SHIT think that what he (or she, but I think it's just some faggot "male") PERSONALLY believes matters?

What the FUCK is up with all the retarded self-important techies? You haven't read a PAGE of even one casebook, and suddenly what you PERSONALLY think in your uneducated mind has some merit?

No, it does not. There is a reason lawschool takes 3 years just for the BASICS. There is a reason you must then pass the Bar exam.

No, you fucking thinking it through in your know-nothing-about-the law brain has ZERO relevance and ZERO merit.

Scribbling on a picture of Dorthy is a derivative work.
Painting a likeness, fully from your own conciousness, of micky mouse is a derivative work.

But a patch that was made by taking the linux code and then adding lines of code here and there, all intermingled, all dependant upon the whole... now that, now that is SOMEHOW "not" a derivative work this fucking TECHIE says.

Guess what guys, The GPL is moot! Hacking on someone ELSE's code does not create a derivative work! All copyright caselaw is moot too!

Yep Yep

Oh go fuck yourself. How dare someone have an opinion on things, amirite?

We've had this discussion tons of times.

They're legally within their rights to withhold distribution of patches to someone who violates their trademark policy or doesn't give them a billion dollars.
It's a derivative work, yes, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to recieve that derivative work.

I could have a non-public source tree of the Linux kernel, a derivative work that fixes all sorts of bugs and basically makes it the greatest kernel ever.

That doesn't mean I have to redistribute it to you, binary or source.

Now, if you happened across a binary of such a compiled kernel, yes, I am required to give you the source, provided a proper request is made, or I could keep a public tree out of the goodness of my heart.

But nothing says I have to redistribute any derivative work made of GPL code publicly, provided you have not recieved a compiled binary.

So have you attended law school and passed the bar? I have, therefore I am right and you are wrong. You are not trained even one day in the law.

You sure seem to know a lot about an anonymous stranger on the internet there, Mr. Anonymous Stranger.

Previous advice stands. Shut up or fuck off, ideally both.

Or, even worse, a MikeeUSA imposter.
Probably that Kurisu sperg.
Makes sense, considering Kurisu fucked off to endchan.

Who's MikeeUSA, and how can you tell it's them through an anonymous post? I'm not adept at differentiating different flavors of stupidity from one another.

from these pattersn you could probably make a regular expression that filters, or identify, MikeeUSA posting

At best you could argue "bad faith", but they aren't really trying to mislead or deceive their customers. The contract is fairly clear in the obligations and rights of the licensee, and it's up to the licensee whether to adhere or not. Bad faith usually applies to poor wording or intentionally backdoored contracts, and I am not sure if there are any precedents of additional contracts taking profit from lack of shielding in a previous contract given by a third party.

The best case you could use is that GPLv2 states that this software is free (as defined by the FSF) software, and while it technically still is free software, the licensee may not take advantage of the rights provided by the license least he wants to get metaphorically fucked in the ass, but you would still need a very transigent judge to ever admit this as valid, considering that this may just be an implied unwritten contract that could hardly be considered binding.

A company provides a service, and a customer X wishes to hire them. Long story short, customer X ends up fucking the company in the ass with the use of their services, maybe accidentally. Customer X wants to hire the company again to make use of their services in the same way, but the company refuses because it would be another blow to their economy. Customer X argues that the contract didn't explicitly stipulate that you didn't have to (accidentally) fuck them in the ass, and therefore he is entitled to a contract renewal. What do you do? This is similar to this case, just not that clear cut, but basically, you could set up a nasty legal precedent.

Again, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Oh please grand master, illuminate me on how recent events are false.

That's exactly what Spender did though.
GRSEC is a joke.

...

cat /dev/zero > /dev/tty
that'll be six billion shekels please

You people are fucking ignorant.

Huge difference now is that we have testimony of the prevention of redistribution.

But it means nothing to you fucks.

Incorrect in practice: the sublicensees have been effectively prevented from exercising the right given to them by the original licensor (linux devs) by the action of the intimediary (grsecurity). In this case, since spengler is working to frustrate the purpose of the grant given by the original licensor the court may very well nullify his right to seek cover of the license: IE: he has acted in bad faith in attempting (successfully here) to DENY a permission granted to the sublicensee by the original licensor and thus has violated the license and can be sued by the original licensor for copyright infringement. (Not to mention the sublicensee for tort violations). Spengler has interfered with the relationship between the licensor (the rightsholder) and the sublicensee (likely a quazi-contractual relationship).

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Please, go to law school or keep you mouth shut.

And other people here, why is it that you choose to believe people who have not been to law school and who have not passed the bar, over me, who has done both?

Why?

They read ONE document, the agreement.
I've read books.

Yet you decide that THEY know what they are talking about? That the written grant exists in a vacume.

It's ONE FUCKING PAGE.
That's a completely integrated, four corners, covers all cases document to you people?

Do you even know what I just said?

You forgot the RSI caused by having to scroll past ceaseless one-paragraph-per-sentence walls of drivel

You should be the one answering this. Why should we believe someone who's as fucking deranged as Jack Thompson?

the only good lawyer is a dead lawyer

Incorrect in practice: the sublicensees have been effectively prevented from exercising the right given to them by the original licensor (linux devs) by the action of the intimediary (grsecurity). In this case, since spengler is working to frustrate the purpose of the grant given by the original licensor the court may very well nullify his right to seek cover of the license: IE: he has acted in bad faith in attempting (successfully here) to DENY a permission granted to the sublicensee by the original licensor and thus has violated the license and can be sued by the original licensor for copyright infringement. (Not to mention the sublicensee for tort violations). Spengler has interfered with the relationship between the licensor (the rightsholder) and the sublicensee (likely a quazi-contractual relationship).

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Please, go to law school or keep you mouth shut.

And other people here, why is it that you choose to believe people who have not been to law school and who have not passed the bar, over me, who has done both?

Why?

They read ONE document, the agreement.
I've read books.

Yet you decide that THEY know what they are talking about? That the written grant exists in a vacume.

It's ONE FUCKING PAGE.
That's a completely integrated, four corners, covers all cases document to you people?

Do you even know what I just said?

Again, you are a fucking retard. Brad Spengler is acting in bad faith, for one, against those who granted the license.
They are the original rights holders and they stipuated in their grant that all sublicensees retain the right to redistribute.
Spengler has concocted a scheme to deny this right. Thus he has acted in bad faith against the original grantors of the license.

That you can't understand this really underlines how all you fucking techies here really don't know shit about the law.

So stop pretending you do.

Now for tort claims the sublicensees have against spengler, that's a second issue.
There are claims on both sides of spengler.

He has interfered with the quazi-contractual relationship that the sublicensees have with the original grantor
(quazi-contractual because their is not direct privity), addionally he is unjustly enriching himself as a consequence of this interference.

The rights holders are the linux developers from who's work Spengler derived his work.
Again, this seems to be another thing you cannot grasp.

Ofcourse you will pooh pooh all this and deny every single thing I've said, and all the fucking retarded techi faggots here will listen to you, with no study of the law, than me.
Just as they listen to people that say linux security is fine as-is.

Just look at this plebian lay person try to run the situation though the gears of his mind.
"Customer" "company" bla bla bla. Not one legal term, no mention of the actual rights holders,
nothing. He imagines as if the linux devs ASSIGNED copyright over to spengler it seems!

Go FUCK yourself retard.

IE:

That's more or less what legal arguments are to you. "Drivel" since you don't know what the fuck I am talking about, and furthermore you don't know what you don't know.

...

Whoever you are, good luck trying to educate your fellow cattle-minded goyim.
They've not done their due diligence and until you point to the source, there's no chance for them to understand what you're talking about.

Hell, most bar lawyers wouldn't understand what you're saying. I do, but I'm user so it doesn't matter.

What do you know about procedure for filing suits at law in international courts? You would obviously be the one passionate enough to pursue such a lofty goal as freeing up security for all.

Finding someone who can bring the case in the proper Juristiction will be no fun (even across state lines it's no fun), will want to petition for a convenient forum and hope it's granted, and have someone qualified for federal work. Just this part of the case will be a trek in and of itself.

There exists potential plaintiffs on both sides of spengler, the linux rights holders above and the sublicensees below

So the suit would be brought in whatever federal district the grsecurity LLC is incorporated in, or wherever it's primary place of business is. Copyright is a federal question, and the tort claims I do not think stand alone in this case so would be heard in the federal court aswell (as for diversity juristiction, if the tort claims are seperable, there are so many linux rights holders that it is possible that one person or corp would be a citizen of the same state as spengler and his company are citizens of (and I'm not sure who spengler has assigned IP to (his company? no body and thus perhaps he holds them))). The issue of whether the foreigners have standing to sue would depend on if congress has passed a law allowing an alien claimant to sue a US citizen. There are a number of these treaties, particularly with western europe and the UK, but I don't think it's with all countries and I don't know if there is any with Russia or latin american countries.

So it would be... complicated, atleast for the foreign tort claims (and foreign copyright claims).

Welcome back, Kurisu.
I suggest you fuck off back to endchan.

samefag elsewhere

No clue what the primary place of business could be considered, maybe just its place of incorporation? Also, grsec is just a trademark of this company:
Open Source Security INC
1200 First St, Apt 1533
Alexandria, VA 22314-1690
(703) 519-0030

So the IP seems to be under the jurisdiction of the states, in a U.S. corporation. This is just a 5 minute search, so some more digging could be done as to the details.

hear hear Holla Forums

not being contrarian is samefagging

It would be the head office, if there is any (Corp HQ) or wherever they do their work if not (spenglers place?). You can start a suit in either jurisdiction: primary place of business or where the corp was incorporated.

So in this case it would be whatever federal district Alexandria, VA (so the one right next to DC IIRC) or wherever Brad Spengler is coding (the VA residence is probably just a mailbox).

Another thing to consider is whether the IP of the derivative work is claimed by the corp (has whatever rights exist been assigned, or is Spengler a work-for-hire of his own corporation?) or is that not the case, in-which case it would still rest with Spengler himself (so another valid jurisdiction would be wherever he resides)

There's nothing to consider, because a derivative work of GPL code doesn't have to have a public tree, you fucking retarded sack of shit.
Until you get a compiled binary of it, there's nothing to action.

And, to reiterate, you're basically arguing that if I create a derivative of the Linux kernel on my computer, and I share the patches with others, but not you, I'm legally obligated to share the tree with you.
That's not how this works.

GPL only guarantees freedom of software an individual has acquired through whatever means, by downloading a compiled binary or whatever.

And sure, those companies have the freedom to share those patch sets with you. But to continue to recieve the patch sets in the first place, they must abide by the terms in whatever contract.
Because they're not recieving compiled kernels.

You don't have an argument, you don't have a case, and if you're the real MikeeUSA you've been rambling about this for months and months.

No one has a case, because there's no violation of the license.

You are not permitted to erect barriers in the way of sublicencees making use of their right to redistribute, a right that is granted by the original rights-holder.
That is called bad faith on your part and your rights to the copyrighted work are dissolved since you have acted in bad faith towards the agreement you have with the original rightsholder
(who has stipulated that sublicensees may redistribute at will: a purpose you are attempting (and succeding at) frustrating).
It does not matter what form these barriers take.

The original licensor has a claim against you, then, for copyright infringement.
The sublicensees have tort claims such as tortious interference (with their quazi-contactual business relationship with the original licensor).
The original licensor has the same such tort claim.

Thank you for your reply. It was a brief respite from the mire of cow dung,

... but it looks like we're back in the thick of it:

I pray that you may come back, I cannot battle these people alone, I think they will get the last word, and all the rest will say "yep, the techie that is not trained in the law is right, the guy with the law degree... pfffft" why they clutch their holy one page document and declare there is no universe outside of it and it rests on nothing other.

Again, there's no barrier to redistribute the code.
If they do, they just won't get anymore patches. It's as simple as that. You are free to redistribute the binary and source that you have, but you are not free to continue doing business with an individual.

LOL NO

Again, read this.
law.washington.edu/lta/swp/Law/derivative.html
Nothing is being violated, their copyright certainly isn't.

In your warped child-fucker brain, assuming you aren't just a copycat, you believe that anyone has rights to any derivative work, regardless if they have recieved it or not, under the GPL.
That's simply not true.

Lol, the folks at grsecurity are practicing security through obscurity because their spineless asshats that can't take a lick of criticism.

The problem is that you're as inflamed by this as you are. In Holla Forums and pretty much everywhere else it's good to take time to cool down, and consider the other viewpoint.

Those who disagree with you are correct that Spazzler & Co. don't have to do business with anyone, especially not anyone after their sources get released. You are also correct in the fact that GNU GPLv2 includes a clause not to be precluded by other contractual obligations.
It may seem that there's an impasse, however, consider this:
Do we even know if they distribute their software to customers under GPLv2 and not LGPLv2, which as far as I understand, is compatible and much more permissive to the distributor? That is something that could make such a case very difficult, as if fighting for FLOSS wasn't already enough of a challenge.
I admire your efforts.

The Linux kernel is GPLv2. They're not allowed to release it under LGPLv2.

Doesn't have to be a contractual obligation at all.
If they redistribute, then they don't get the benefit of being able to enter into a new contract after their contract expires. In effect, their company is blacklisted. They don't have to do business with anyone, or redistribute patches to anyone.
There, I solved the mystery.
Spengler is an autistic piece of shit, but there's no GPL violations going on here.

Then suddenly:

It makes you look like retards when you call a very well-known, widely used piece of software complete shit for a mistake you're not technologically competent enough to understand

Don't forget him chimping out over some gooks abusing his trademark.

The only one who looked like a fucking retard was Spengler, who started fucking banning people on his twitter, then banning people by IP address on his website, and then shut down his twitter in a chimpout.
The mistake doesn't matter, his reaction to it does.

Does anyone know what the cost is to be subscribed to the stable patches?

>[...]See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street for maps
I always thought it was a typo, but I guess not. It really autizes me.

So what if he's an autist prone to sperging? It doesn't mean his code isn't good

Feels over technological reals, I guess? That's exactly how an SJW thinks.

It was a technological real to the person who reported it, who is much more competent than even you, if you want to play this game.
Quit sucking Spengler's dick please.

His sperging is a real problem. If your reaction to people pointing out bugs is to ban them from interacting with you then that's going to be bad for the project, no matter how good your code is.

The problem was that instead of going to the bugtracker the guy made fun of him on Twitter, I can't blame him for sperging

You can blame him for sperging this much. Getting angry would have been fine, applying IP bans and deleting his twitter account is several steps too far.

Wouldn't >>>/gaschamber/ and >>>/oven/ be better.

Wow that is a very good obversion right there. Also to that is totally gramaratically correct.

those work too.

Then do something about it

I'm still going to use grsecurity

that is logically correct. unknown unknowns. in tech i know that i don't know haskel but in cooking there are techniques i don't even know of that i don't know

Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
Richard Stallman (May 31 2016 10:27 PM)

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

If I understand right, this is a matter of GPL 2 on the Linux patches.
Is that right? If so, I think GRsecurity is violating the GPL on
Linux.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

This site fucking sucks.

Can you post the email you sent him?

meh, SELINUX is superior in every way, also the additions of Grsecurity are mostly mainline now any way. next

...

as long as one licensee secretly leaks every update everyone else can have grsecurity.
someone will need to break the contract, but grsecurity can't extend it to everybody else, who receive the patches solely under the GPLv2 terms given by the Linux kernel

it's still better than the alternatives

great, let's just wait for the Linux devs to enforce the GPL.
brotip: they won't. they don't give a fuck about your freedom

The email is the exact same text as the first post here.

So I've allready posted it.

So all you detractors, shouting "MikeeUSA", "no law degree, no bar passage, all lies", bla bla bla.

I sent the same texts as the OP text here to RMS, and he read it, just like you, and he says that GRSecurity is infringing.

How about that.

So how do you feel you fucking piece of shit retards?

Still think YOU know what you're talking about after studying the law for zero days?

Yep, I'm sure you do. Pieces of shit.

You do know that any one of the thousands upon thousands of linux contributors has standing to sue, right? There was no copyright assignment.

Oh and EVERYONE notice how the FUCKING piece of shit, even when confronted with RMS agreeing with ME, will NOT let it go.

"BRO TIP: Uhhhh it doesn't matter, u still loose hahahahhahahahah!"

FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.

...

We sure are talking to a pedophile piece of shit, yes

Oops look like you lost the argument, so you better call him a pedophile, as if that has relevancy to why you just got btfo

Sure, which is why they develop and host Linux images for the masses to download

This is a SFW board, as I'm sure you're aware.

MikeeUSA is a pedo, though.

Holla Forums is shit

Who cares, though? He's not fucking your kid, so what?

It would be much less shit if you and your pathetic ilk would fuck off.

...

Sued for what??

So are you just testing the boundaries of what you can get away with here, or are you just posting it here to shit up the board out of petty spite now that your home board's banned? Either way you're fucking sad.

>>>/phile/ is still up
the ally mangrum thread on >>>/wx/ is probably still up
>>>Holla Forums is still up
>>>/bl/ is still up

>>>/privat/ is still up

freech is also up, so why the fuck are you even on this site

Okay
For the 4 boards I listed

lmao no law degree chaosesque is shit switches are not sjws

...

You said GRSec is in the right.

RMS says you're wrong, GRSec is infringing.

You say no law degree and chaosesque is shit...

Perhaps you might also be wrong on those two...

Just try to think about WHY you didn't get it right when it came to the law... but someone else who claims 1) to have a law degree and 2) that chaos-esque is, infact, not shite, did get it right...

So, this is the CP spammer's last stand, huh?

Yes. This is what an autistic chimpout looks like. Fascinating to watch them melt down, isn't it?

You said GRSec is in the right.

RMS says you're wrong, GRSec is infringing.

You say no law degree and chaosesque is shit...

Perhaps you might also be wrong on those two...

Just try to think about WHY you didn't get it right when it came to the law... but someone else who claims 1) to have a law degree and 2) that chaos-esque is, infact, not shite, did get it right...

Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
Richard Stallman (May 31 2016 10:27 PM)

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

If I understand right, this is a matter of GPL 2 on the Linux patches.
Is that right? If so, I think GRsecurity is violating the GPL on
Linux.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

This is quite literally the most retard thread I've ever seen.
A stable version is actually an old release of a testing product. For instance, look at debian stable and testing
They are the same fucking thing except debian stable freezes packages from testing.
GRSEC. DOES THE SAME. FUCKING THING.
For absolute fucking retards, The paid patches are under WARRENTY, which means spender is LEGALLY obligated to make
150% sure the patches will not affect production thus obviously applying extra fail-safes. Software without warranties
means the developers don't have to give a shit if it doesn't work for you. In contrast,spender nicely responded to my
newb tweets for assistance with "stable" grsecurity AFTER he started paywalling the "stable" patch. Not only that but
CopperheadOS also helped out. So in summary, if you're a absolute egotistic retard looking for attention, you are
going to have a bad time. (Which sums up gaymergate and SJWS combined, you're all a bunch of masturbating monkeys)

Furthermore the way GRSecurity handles business makes redhat out to be a fucking girl scout

Fucking this

Oh man, I sure hope you don't hope anybody will fall for this
I suggest reading the thread next time

0x0.st/b7E.jpg

You mean bike-shedding, basement dwellers like fucking mikeusa and half truths that only cherry a few lines from irc logs? I don't need to because OPs retarded post from fucking reddit (the epitome of egotistic retards) says it all

cherry pick a few*

stallman says grsecurity is violating the GPL

lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-06/msg00000.html

Just stop using memesecurity already.
It was never necessary to harden the kernel. Any reasonable improvement suggested to the kernel has been implemented. It has been never proven "superior" to existing hardening techniques.

grsec fags BTFO

As consumer rights too.

After this shitty thread's been dragged out 100 replies too long all you have to show for it is one semi-credible source with no copyright interest to the code in question.

gee gee

He's not privy to any details, so he can't say whether it's a violation of that section.
GRSec could just as easily not include it in a contractual obligation, and renew contracts regularly, say bi-yearly. Or some shit.
That would not be a GPL violation.

It's the threat that matters.

The _THREAT_ is what evidences the bad faith.

The fact that grsecurity is, infact, trying to prevent the sublicensee from distributing, which is a bad faith violation of the agreement grsecurity had with the original licensor.

Why is this so damn hard for techies to understand?

No matter what scheme you cook up, the court will look and see it's intended effect and it's actual effect.

The intended effect of is that the source code never be redistributed.

Has the intended effect occured? Was the threat successful.

Yes.

You can't fool the court, techies. There is nothing new under the sun. They've seen this noise 100 times before in different contexts.

It's the threat that matters.

The _THREAT_ is what evidences the bad faith.

The fact that grsecurity is, infact, trying to prevent the sublicensee from distributing, which is a bad faith violation of the agreement grsecurity had with the original licensor.

Why is this so damn hard for techies to understand?

No matter what scheme you cook up, the court will look and see it's intended effect and it's actual effect.

The intended effect of is that the source code never be redistributed.

Has the intended effect occured? Was the threat successful.

Yes.

You can't fool the court, techies. There is nothing new under the sun. They've seen this noise 100 times before in different contexts

The thread is "shitty" because you have lost:
1) On the legal arguments (you can't fathom any of it however, so don't realize this).

2) By the proclamation of someone in authority who's name you recognize who read the same fact pattern you have and has come to the same conclusion that I have.

2 is why you have piped down. 1 is why 2 happened.

What threat? You have no information on any threat? Only the people who are getting patches distributed to them have a tort at this point.

Please calm down, Mike.

I have a newfound respect for spender, knowing that this pedo autist has tried and failed to run him out of business

funny that, if not for this thread showing that some people really deserve death, I might've still been rooting for grsec's demise myself right now

top tier

...

Spam up RMS's e-mail fam. The FSF is always happy to hear about GPL violations. The Linux Foundation might also be a good place to contact since this is their work that's being used in violation of the license, and Linus has made it clear that he does not appreciate GPL violations on the Linux kernel.

IT'S HAPPENING

hello
has conservancy looked at the grsec situation?
news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11808914

the judge comment was about redhat
unfortunately not
oh, I see, well, again, there is a tremendous amount of consensus that the RHEL business model doesn't violate, in part because RHEL contract includes a trump clause.
so you'd have to show that you took an action under GPL and that RHEL violated that trump clause
but again
we need a hillary clause
and a bernie clause
Tsutsukakushi: I said trump, not Trump
i know
there is nothing in GPL that says a provider MUST keep someone as a customer no matter what the customer does.
There is sadly a long history of customers being intimidated from exercising their rights under GPL
but is it legal to give a license and terminate the contract if the customer does exactly what the license says?
Tsutsukakushi: the question "is it legal" doesn't make sense here.
how does it not
The only relevant question is: "Does Red Hat infringe copyright when it says: 'If you have more copies of GPL'd software than we like, we will terminate your contract. BTW, nothing here is meant to contradict your rights under GPL"
how do you measure copies of digital media?
one copy isn't any more than hundredthousand copies
Tsutsukakushi: I don't at all, I'm not Red Hat.
Red Hat reserves the right to do BSA-style audits to see how many copies of RHEL the customer has
k
that is kind of bullshit
and if they find more than Red Hat likes, Red Hat's remedy is to stop selling services and future distriubtion to the customer.
This is bizarre, but it's hard to say it's a GPL violation.
As I said, I think it was a judgment call of GPL interpretation.
And the trump clause is key
because if Red Hat does something that crosses the line
they've violated both the GPL and the contract that says: "If this contract contradicts your rights under GPL, GPL rights prevail"
But, RHEL customers live in fear and don't make extra copies of the GPl'd binaries because they fear Red Hat cancelling their contract and they rely so much on that RH service
"living in fear" of what might happen if you exercise your rights under GPL is not in itself of a GPL violation, though, I don't think.
GPL isn't perfect, Tsutsukakushi.... it's possible to do things under GPL and copyright that are truly wrong and nefarious (cf: MySQL AB business model of relicensing shakedowns)
yeah
From #conservancy on Freenode.

holy shit
we need GPLv4 NOW

Dam the RH contracts are bullshit
It should be way simpler
you've got 50 pc with RHEL "we will support the 50 pc if you've got 10 more pc feel free to use the software but you can go fuck yourself if there is a problem with those :)"
And that's how RH would not have crossed the line
You don't sell sell software, you work around it

Not if they learned a thing about the law concerning agreements.

What does the grsecurity dev say about all of this BTW TQB Fam?

"We wuz kangs"
--

the edgy autismo with the anime username got btfo

Thank you for your input NSA shill.

Are you high? Every single time the kernel team implements a feature that undoubtedly already in grsec, they fuck it up

Baka

Is Brad Spengler pro marry young girls or anti-pedo.

Need to know.

Cuz: Reasons.

(That is: does Brad Spengler support the first victory of feminism like the posters at endchan do in this discussion: endchan.xyz/tech/res/4339.html )

Remeber: all these techies and stormcucks arguing that GPL == BSD license as long as one can draft an NDA

1) Have not one day of study of the law.
2) Have not graduated law school
3) Have not passed the Bar
4) Oppose men taking sweet cute young female children as brides

--------------------------------

So, audience; Who do you choose to believe?

Not only does the other side not know what it is talking about; Not only is it untrained in the field of study at hand; But it also hates that any man on this earth should ever get what is good.

--------
endchan.xyz/tech/res/4339.html#4639
By the way Mr. Lawyer, you're going to lose your license to practice with #4)

A criminal code violation called statutory rape.

I don't take anything you say on this topic seriously anymore, and I wouldn't hire you or recommend you to any clients.

------

endchan.xyz/tech/res/4339.html#4643

Wonderful CUNT logic!

I pray for your death.

The death of feminists and their supporters should be pursed vigorously in the new technological age.

Men should live to pursue happiness as once they could.

Nope.

-------

How about you don't, techie. How about you go to law school for a few years first, pass the bar, etc.

It's called bad faith.

As I explained before, grsecurity-dev only has the right to modify and redistribute linux (or create derivative works based on the linux kernel) because of the agreement he agreed to. Outside of that he does not have such a right and commits copyright infringement.

The agreement stipulates that all further licensees also retain the same rights (to redistribute, modify, etc) that the initial licensee was granted.

If you're a party to an agreement, and then violate that agreement, or treat it in bad faith, your rights under that agreement are dissolved.

Why is this so hard for you techies to understand? It's a basic point of law!

You can't go an circumvent the agreement through "clever" means and expect a court to uphold the parts of the agreement that are good for you.

Outside of the license grant, GRSec dev has NO right to do ANYTHING with the linux kernel.
The license grant, granted by the original rights-holders, stipulates that any, for lack of a better term, sublicensee (of derivative works etc) is to be granted the same rights as the first licensee

That is the BASIS of the BARGAIN the original licensors are striking with the licensees:
You can use this property for free, modify it, distribute it, etc: it is open, BUT you must allow the same for anyone else to whom it or any derivative work is distributed.

Once the basis of the bargain is intentionally frustrated there is no bargain, no agreement, no grant.

Just bare copyright.
All rights reserved.

AKA: copyright infringement on any modification or dissemination.

-------

Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
Richard Stallman (May 31 2016 10:27 PM)

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

If I understand right, this is a matter of GPL 2 on the Linux patches.
Is that right? If so, I think GRsecurity is violating the GPL on
Linux.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
Richard Stallman (May 31 2016 10:27 PM)

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

If I understand right, this is a matter of GPL 2 on the Linux patches.
Is that right? If so, I think GRsecurity is violating the GPL on
Linux.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

.

Remeber: all these techies and stormcucks arguing that GPL == BSD license as long as one can draft an NDA

1) Have not one day of study of the law.

2) Have not graduated law school

3) Have not passed the Bar

4) Oppose men taking sweet cute young female children as brides

--------------------------------

So, audience; Who do you choose to believe?

Not only does the other side not know what it is talking about; Not only is it untrained in the field of study at hand; But it also hates that any man on this earth should ever get what is good.

--------

endchan.xyz/tech/res/4339.html#4639

By the way Mr. Lawyer, you're going to lose your license to practice with #4)

A criminal code violation called statutory rape.

I don't take anything you say on this topic seriously anymore, and I wouldn't hire you or recommend you to any clients.

------

endchan.xyz/tech/res/4339.html#4643

Wonderful CUNT logic!

I pray for your death.

The death of feminists and their supporters should be pursed vigorously in the new technological age.

Men should live to pursue happiness as once they could.

Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code

Richard Stallman (May 31 2016 10:27 PM)

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]

[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]

[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

If I understand right, this is a matter of GPL 2 on the Linux patches.

Is that right? If so, I think GRsecurity is violating the GPL on

Linux.

--

Dr Richard Stallman

President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)

Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)

Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Friendly reminder that the person in this thread is a MikeeUSA copycat.

It's 'Kurisu', a shitposter that was also banned for fagging up network neutrality threads many moons ago.

The pedophile who stole Xonotic's source code and is STILL violating its license still won't shut up

It's not MikeeUSA
It's Kurisu
Hence the endchan link at the beginning of the thread
Kurisu went to go shit up endchan and comes back here occasionally.

Or maybe it's both of them.
Who knows with these fucking retarded sacks of shit.

Tell us more about this theft and LICENSE VIOLATION of the prestigious AAA proprietary game known as Xonotic?

How did the code leak? It was a lulzsec hack of sony right?

I would say this one is a parody (if only because despite MikeeUSA loving to talk about marrying little children, I doubt he would ever mix it as gratuitously as these last posts do while talking about legal stuff) but a really good parody at that. The writing style is almost identical.

I would be glad to have Kurisu on this and the endchan thread, and every other thread, here's a list:

soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/06/02/214243
lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-05/msg00114.html
lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2016-June/016589.html
news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11808914
reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4m6mm5/libreplanetdiscuss_grsecurity_is_preventing/
sys.8ch.net/tech/res/605120.html
boards.4chan.org/g/thread/54839391
endchan.xyz/tech/res/4339.html
lwn.net/Articles/689385/

I was very happy when he enriched the /cow/ thread and ruined it for them and you anti-marry-girl-children people (you should be executed under the terms found in Deuteronomy (hebrew))

Why do you doubt that?

It's Kurisu, he did the same exact shit, he likes to copycat MikeeUSA.

Believe that if you want; I could use a co-developer for the Chaos-Esque mod.

Why do you doubt that?

Please tell.

Kurisu seems to be displaying an adeptness regarding the law that is new for him. Good job Kurisu!

Now, let's talk about that son of a bitch who orchestrated this theft and LICENSE VIOLATION of the prestigious AAA proprietary game known as Xonotic?

How did the code leak? It was a lulzsec hack of sony right?

?

What is this about?

What does RMS say?

What does RMS say??

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

> Another update for full disclosure as it happens: The GRSecurity
> developer now claims that the two reddit sources (the guy from the
> russian hosting company, and the guy from the non-for-profit) are
> lying

I suggest challenging the GRSecurity developer to post that patch
and show us its license.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Notice the techies and anti-marry-young-girls people have quit the thread.

They have no response to RMS.

That's not a vulnerability, that's a security feature giving a false positive.

Try again faggot.

libre bump

Friendly reminder that there are chans free from this kind of cancer

I too wonder about the precise terms in the contract. I doubt we'll ever know.

grsecurity is not cancer: it's the only thing that makes the kernel viable in the modern 24/7 interconnected techno world we now live in.

Before maybe having swiss cheeze for security was fine. Not any more.

not talking about grsec, you fucking pedo cancer

Marrying female children is not cancer: Deuteronomy 22, 28-29, hebrew.

If you entice others to follow something else, then you must be killed, as based Deuteronomy commands.

pedo cancer

emphasis on the cancer

You are an utterly idiot shithole and only the internet and the modern law is what defend you from us to massacre the monsters like you.

Heard you faggots were talking shit about my anti-net neutrality crusade. This is my first post ITT. I also see that you faggots have been sufficiently terrorized so that you see my shadow behind every post you don't like. Top kek tbh fam.

All that 8ch is anymore is cucks and Redditors. Endchan is the chan of champions. I've enjoyed it working flawlessly while you stupid bastards stayed here to get your shit pushed in repeatedly. I'm suprised that half of you haven't fucked off to 16chan, seeing how much Infinity Next cock you choked on over the last year. Last November was especially pathetic, the damage control was just embarrasing.

This also needs to be said: Look in the mirror faggots, I'll always be better than you and you know it. You are all a bunch of intellectual lightweights who hop up and down like retards for the comedy genius of a complete dipshit like John Oliver.

Finally, MikeeUSA is one of the best to ever be produced by 8ch. He has kept the faith while you heathens have gone full SJW.

P.S. Nothing personal kids, but you should kill yourselves if you can't leave this shithole. Nothing is more pathetic than a bunch of try-hard Holla Forumsirgins LARPing about their hAx0r skillz while posting in a grsecurity thread.

Actually, you have that backwards. RWDS won't smile kindly on a cuck like you I'm afraid. We are going to bring back traditionalism wether you like it or not. Lower the age to get married or face the wrath of a vengeful god and his agents of mercy.

...

u mad bro? Your memes are terrible and you should feel bad.

lol you're a closeted homo

As opposed to BR cock from a monkey who can't into proper architecture?
Friendly reminder he used gridfs to store threads, and paved over bad architecture choice with a build queue, and no one knows if it will actually work with a firehose of data.

pffthahahahaha

sharkbait thread/10

Best grsecurity thread is best!

Can anyone tell us about RAP vs ROP, the press release was vague but excited. I think you need to have been following development to know what was going on however.

low energy bait

nobody is born an expert but I'll remind you that odilitime fixed 8ch while Josh had a meltdown. odilitime is the admin of Endchan and he actually 1. posts on the chan and 2. he is making real progress that you can see, often and 3. you get 250 MB WEBM and 4. you can use Tor or VPN to post. 8ch broke that recently, but you are in a security thread, why don't I let you tell me why 8ch is the superior software. Did you see IRCwheels looking at each pixel? How many times (about a dozen) has 8ch leaked all the user IPs? Did you know that this was the chan that tried to implement Infinity Next with Josh? Ever see a spam solution stickied on Holla Forums to keep submitting your post because the server is unable to process a connection? I fucking called that stupid shit out the second I saw it right here on Holla Forums bit you dumb fucks didn't listen. The site went offline and the only reason anyone can post here after that beauty of JAVASCRIPT is that the site lost 50% of its users in less than a week. Go ahead, tell me all about 8ch's coding skillz, it amuses me.

Oh boy, a ddos vector! I hope you realize there's no fucking way their servers will be able to handle a userbase even half the size of this dead as fuck place

You should stay here, you are the definition of cancer. All of human history versus the last 100 years since women got the vote, which is responsible for the demographic decline in all western countries and the people's slow demise. What was the percent of America that was white before Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Reform? Are you happy that you can't go to LA or Miami and get good service in English? How many nacro-terrorist slayings do you need before you see the error of leftist politics? I for one do not like the idea of waiting for Mexico 2.0 in my country, its time to say so. Likewise, women vote for the most inane and suicidal national policies in overwhelming numbers. Its because they welcome the conqueror, its their survival instinct to try and accomodate everyone, but its femenist thinking that sees a perversion of the maternal instinct to see us protect those who are not us while they wither into OLD MAIDS. yes, women think that having children before 30 is a crime these days. Then they decide that having no kids is better than changing diapers so they watch in disinterest as they get pushed out of their cities and neighborhoods by illegal immigrants.

A stupid faggot is the one who supports the status quo. You are a literal cuckold without the ability to look back in history more than a few years and to discern simple truths about yourself or your direction in life, or the way forward for your progeny. You are the real dead-end because you are a moron, a failure of evolution.

So you read all that and your only comeback is to say that you think you found a flaw? And you just ignore how 8ch has been a shithole for ages now? That top board volunteers quit, all that shit.. "8ch is not the place it used to be". So go ahead, try upliading some 250 MB WEBM. While you are at it you might see that not only do they have the space but that you might actually enjoy watching an anime episode on /AM/ instead of just the 5 second clips that you are used to... but that assumes that you can tell quality when you see it.

This is some kind of deep mental illness/non-functioning autism required to produce these posts fam

m8 the only vollys from the top25 who actually quit was the one from Holla Forums and /hebe/ because they were pedos from Masterchan, it was because Jim stopped tolerating pedo shit, good riddance

Lynxchan/Endchan has its own awful parts, though. It has a lot of improvements over Infinity/Holla Forums, but it's much farther from perfection than you make it sound.

Because it's written in node.js, it's too hard to wait with redirecting to a page until it actually exists. The solution? They added a periodic refresh to every single 404 page in any context. If a thread 404ed when you open your browser again it's just going to keep refreshing in the background over and over again, wasting resources.

The report system is awful. If a post is reported multiple times only the first report is kept, and the rest is silently ignored. The report queue doesn't show the reported posts, you have to follow a link. If a report is handled it doesn't disappear, you have to manually close it, using a button that leads to a redirect page that makes you wait three seconds. The moderation system is full of things like this, because StephenLynx invented it from scratch without looking at anything that already existed and without any experience moderating an imageboard.

The moderator action log is shit. It's not divided into multiple logs per board, but it is divided into multiple logs per day.

There is a lot like this.

Never. Infinitydev.org did that once, but 8ch has never leaked all user IPs, only some of them in a few isolated incidents. It's terrible, I won't deny that, but you're making things up here.

Holla Forums has this restored now, but without image posting (I'm investigating why). Lynxchan still is better at this.

I'm not trying to argue that Holla Forums is necessarily better (it clearly loses at administrator involvement and stability), but it's not such a clear loss.

back to cuckchan or Reddit ot Twitter or whatever with you, you add no value with your two line posts and lack of image posting on an imageboard. You are the worst type of poster, without a doubt. Even Travis Two Swords or literal pages full of scat are more enjoyable to read than you whining while contributing nothing. What is your point, that we should all stroke your ego because you posted a literal nothing post, that we should be so grateful to have your presence on this board even though you made a post devoid of content? If this is the current state of 8ch, posters like you, I'm glad I left for a superior posting experience with actual anons worth posting with.

Kek is this real life?

acknowledged, but they are constantly improving the software

How about here? This place is run by Jim now. Its different than before, with quality posters like for company.

I didn't lie, but its not my hobby to document every failure of this place, so I don't have screencaps. Answer me this: what is the final straw for you? When do you give up on a bad chan?

Nah

It's owned by Jim (it has been owned by Jim since the domain became 8ch.et), but run by Ron. It was run by Jim for a short time. Ron is hard to reach lately, but otherwise fine.

If you're going to call Holla Forums out for not leaking "all user IPs" then infinitydev.org and the beta never did "leak all user IPs."
Fred gets to own that, just like he made Josh own all that shit when he was acting like a sociopath who just wanted to manipulate Josh to give Jim a total and complete license exception to the software going forward for basically nothing, after he'd done nothing to help development, and couldn't even deliver on the shitty desktop hardware he was supposed to provide until two months later.

You forgot the fact that Jim has been busy 'accidentially' range banning a bunch of shit, not once but twice, justifying nuking of a perfectly legal board that had nothing to do with pedophilia with "Fuck off, I just deleted severe rejects and abnormals" and constantly comes to Holla Forums wanting to be accepted when he's a slimy as fuck businessman with a shady past.

If I remember correctly all of that was before appointing Ron.

Nah, this all was after appointing Ron.
His son will definitely never say anything about it though, wouldn't want to upset daddy or anything.

Read the hebrew.
It says right there in the hebrew:

נַעֲרָה na`arah

Feminine of H5288; a girl (from infancy to adolescence):—damsel, maid (-en), young (woman).

Thus includes female children.

Ofcourse you christians will swear the opposite for all time. Go to hell.

(Actually, the hebrew glyphs actually say: נַעַר na`ar , but it is na`arah by implication)

(If the man rapes a child, she becomes his wife (woman))

He(1) must. If he(1) kills the man(2) during the day his(2) blood is upon his(1) head. If he(1) entices others to follow another judge/ruler/god then he(1) is killed. He(1) cannot go to the right nor the left of Deuteronomy.

1: The rapist has allready taken the girl... That's what makes him a rapist :)

Not too long ago:

Your police is what protects you. Once upon a time people like myself would have banded together and murdered pro-women's rights people like yourself.

Girls were the only thing good in a man's life and many men were not going to let that one pleasure go.

Then consumer comforts and police came.

That's why you live while you have something men want and you won't give it up: in most times that means you were dead and robbed.

Deuteronomy wisely councils you to give up the goods for what purpose they are designed to serve.

Attempt to rape or fuck a man's daughter before even the 1800s, being a fullly grown yet mentally retarded man such as yourself who has nothing to offer, and see how long your testicles last without being shot off or gone to work on with a hammer.

Fuck off, you retarded sack of shit.

Might makes right? I welcome that, let us see who will be left standing at the end of the day. You are a Heretic and should pay the price. My ancestors are smiling on me, can you say the same? Within the span of a hundred years you adopted a culture of self-destruction, so much so that you yearn to protect what ails you from your enlightened peers' righteous judgement. Stop your white knighting and damage control user, women's "rights" will be relgated to the ash-heap of history by the Muslims or whoever else you lose too, you weak cuckold, you cannot do anything but whine about what you know must come.

Fuck off back to endchan.

ha ha ha ha

Can't handle the banter? I called out the bullshit that was Infinity Next, etc. You have nothing but my contempt as a cuck who preps the bull.

Infinity Next couldn't be deployed because Hotwheels shitty captcha was not optimized in conjunction with the dynamic captcha system led to the server becoming unresponsive when it started getting a bunch of new IP addresses.
Once again, fuck off back to endchan. You are only attempting to derail a thread and aren't actually discussing the topic.

This is what happens when you drink the Kool-Aid everyone, look and laugh at this user's damage control

You're free to argue using facts. What I stated is a fact. Quit fagging up the thread.

user, user, I gave you plenty of facts. Just look at the image in the post you replied to. You don't care about facts, you are just a SJW ideologue who cannot into independant thought.

Are you seriously this desperate for replies that you keep going on and on?

Go back to endchan, you fucking faggot.
Stop shitting up the god damn thread.

You were an embarassment here, you'd spam threads when someone put you in your place, and you probably shit up endchan/tech/ as well, with your fucking cringey monologues.

I'd suggest you kill yourself but fuck knows you love the wafting smell of your own shit too much to even consider ending your own life. Shitposting is too pleasurable for you, it's probably all you need.

You post was delicious user. Never change. I'll be back again to laugh at you.

Thread OP here: This is my thread and I'm happy Makise Kurisu is here.

I'd also be happy if the rest of you were 6 feet under.

wew

Thanks for reminding me, need to do that and filter MikeeUSA's buzzwords.

8ch is a safe space, or its suppossed to be for muh' special over here. Pathetic.

I only trip when I'm calling you out directly. That way you know its me that makes you fear the night. Just look at all the "its Kurisu, its Kurisu" in the beginning of the thread. Strategic namefagging is super effective.

Thanks OP. When you get sick of this place you know that you have some fellow anons out there.

Filtered

I wanna be an Endchan user
I wanna be better than Holla Forums
Living a life of danger
Calling out fags on Holla Forums

I wanna be a Meme Master
I wanna post Anti-Net Neutrality
Makise Kurisu animu poster
I'll make you see the truth

Anons, anons, can't you see?
You'll never be as good as me

Meme Master, Life of Danger,
Enchan user, Better than Holla Forums,
animu poster, truth teller,
Anti-Net Neutrality...

you and me

another thread, another mountain of harvested salt
all these SJW tears sustain me
normalfags BTFO
welcome to die

8ch BTFO

Word.

This is why pedophiles should be gassed, btw.

You are the board volunteer

You also have shit taste

Just because someone remembers your faggotry doesn't make them a hotpocket.

I know its you, you don't have to be so modest. In fact, it couldn't be anyone else. I made threads for over nine months and never got a ban, then you got your hotpocket badge and banned me that very same day. You stayed here while many other board volunteers and even board owners said they had enough of the corruption, but not you, you are still here. You love the power you get from being able to ban people from a board that gets 400 unique IP hits a day. How much of it is samefagging on a VPN though? It doesn't matter, you are a small man with small ideas. You will be here until the Jim turns off the server. You have no integrity, and you have no real future here, you really should just end it.

That's not me, although I did talk to you in this thread.

I had been a volunteer for months when I banned you, and I saw you make a lot of net neutrality threads. You went too far when you did a dump in a thread that wasn't yours and wasn't strictly about net neutrality, as I explained to you. I don't mind if you make a hundred posts about net neutrality in a dedicated thread, but you were destroying another one. I told you all of that.

I'm also the owner of the Endchan Holla Forums board you like shilling so much.

roflmao

That thread clearly had anons discussing the merits of anti net neutrality, regardless of the OP subject. You were being a bit overzealous with that banhammer at the time too. Anyway, you see the sorry state of this place now, what do you have to say for yourself? Are you happy with the moderation job you did, with IRCwheels and all the rest of it? Since you decided to post with a tag, perhaps you can tell us why you are still here? Anybody can make a claim on a slow board btw, gobbling up board positions doesn't make you a demi-god. What have you done for me lately? Endchan is the better site btw, I'm sure you would agree.

GRSecurity :D!

GRSECURITY! D: :D

Yes, and the only ones with a copyright claim against GRSecurity are the rights-holders to linux. Thank's for repeating what I said before. It's like you're spouting truisms now!:

The sublicensees have a tort claim against GRSecurity (based on tortious interference with quasi-contractual relationship with original licensor)

The licensors have a copyright-infringement claim against GRSecurity (Basis: GRSecurity has treated the agreement in bad faith and thus cannot seek cover under that same agreement: thus absent the agreement GRSecurity is liable for copyright infringement due to their modification and distribution of a derivative work of the licensor's copyrighted work)

The FTC can also get involved due to vertical restraint on trade (but likely won't as GRSec has no market postion).

So, indeed, you stated the claim the sublicensees have against GRSecurity and correctly identified the area of law from which that claim arises! Very good!

You left out the other 2 avenues of attack, but for someone not versed in the law at all that is understandable :).

(Pound sand you piece of shit. )

-----------------------------

Actually the "reason" pedophiles should be gassed, historically, is because they push for things that would be detrimental to women's market position:
Few men would buy a woman when they can buy a girl.
Few men would rent a woman when they can buy a girl.
Few men would enslave themselves to a woman when they can buy a girl.

Get your facts and herstory right, storm cuck.

I'd like to thank you again for being on this thread.

Makise Kurisu: I also thank you :D

Very relevant to (possible) GRsecurity violation(s) of the GPLv2

fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions

How is the license supposed to be enforced with the effect that you say enforcement will have if you have the major proponent of the license saying shit like this is permissible?

The major proponent of the license is not the licensor in this case, so it is not them who would be bringing suit but the linux rights-holders (the devs). The FSF is free to withhold in taking action against parties that seek to frustrate the agreement between it and licensees of the gnu software, just as the linux right's holders are free to bring actions against those who treat the agreement in bad faith.

Furthermore the major proponent of the license has read the same fact pattern you have (originating post) and has come to this conclusion:

Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
Richard Stallman (May 31 2016 10:27 PM)

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

If I understand right, this is a matter of GPL 2 on the Linux patches.
Is that right? If so, I think GRsecurity is violating the GPL on
Linux.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

(FSF holds copyright to gnu software so can go easy on licensees if it wishes, while 1000s of linux devs are rights-holders to linux and can decide not to go easy on those who intentionally frustrate the purpose of the agreement. Courts do not allow a party to cover under an agreement which he has treated in bad faith)

What is this about.
What the fuck is grsecurity?

gtfo of Holla Forums you dumb nigger

They have no proof that anything is a GPL violation so no, they do not.
Until they see a contractual obligation that restricts their rights, they have none.
Again, people who get the patches redistributed to them are under no obligation to redistribute to you when you do not have a binary.
So, do you have a compiled binary of a GRSec kernel?

You'd be making a much better argument if you want to go buy hardware from a vendor that gets GRSec patches if they didn't redistribute to you.

went*

And this is the most important part: you must posess a compiled GRSec kernel.

If a vendor refuses to redistribute in that case, it's a GPL violation. If they won't redistribute due to a contractual obligation, it's a GPL violation.

You don't have to bring in your retarded "I went to law school" arguments. There's no GPL violations going on until you can prove it, and seeing as you don't have a compiled GRSec kernel in your posession that uses the non-public patches there is no way to prove it by attempting to exercise your rights under the GPL.

And if you don't have one in your posession, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. It's as simple as that.

Again: Linux kernel developers, or anyone who holds copyright, cannot "compel" me to release the patches I have on my computer, if they do not posess a compiled binary.

gib binary plox

Discussing net neutrality was fine, spamming about it not.

I'm still here because I still like it here.

I became board owner by being the only active staff member for a few months until the original owner decided to transfer the board. I brought it up because you thought that I had no interest in looking outside Holla Forums. Endchan Holla Forums was chosen as an official backup board/potential migration target when Jim started making weird bans.

I think Endchan has better owners and worse technology. I'm considering forking Lynxchan, it's very annoying.

Then it's a bad choice of backup board. Would be good as a tarpit for insufferable cunts like the one making most of the posts ITT though.

That's like saying "I'm considering rolling around in dog shit."
Fork Meguca or Infinity Next.
One is actually NEXT GEN WEB SCALE and the other, while not WEB SCALE, has pretty much every feature that the successor to Infinity needed, because someone sat down for eight months and did so.

Infinity Next is good already. No need to fork that.

Lynxchan has a lot of problems that are not fundamental to the system but make it a pain to use because of lack of thought in the design.

I do appreciate you thinking about advancing the software. Credit where credit is due. ;)

you literally started flooding a thread in response to getting btfo.
fuck off, you autistic piece of shit.

you get mad, I win

looks like I won again

you can drone on about facts and logic, but we all know that you don't really care about that. you ignore everything and try to claim that you are still correct, so I do what I have to, I make you mad. you brought this upon yourself thru your intellectual dishonesty. you don't get to shit in your bed and then complain about the smell. you deserve to wallow in your own filth. this is the hell you chose.

now either enjoy it or suffer, the choice is yours

Say what you want about grsecurity, but the fact remains that Linux is a complete Piece Of Fucking Shit when it comes to security, and Linus doesn't even GAF.

What is grsecurity relevant to linux kernel team and process?

Truth.

Linux is unusable on the net without grsecurity.

OP here, Makise Kurisu is welcome on this thread, the rest of you anti-marry-girl-children people are not.

Yea, when you've never studied the law, nor graduated, nor passed the exam... yea BTFO by a uneducated anti-loli piece of shit. Sure. You don't even know what you don't know.

Let's reiterate:

Yes, and the only ones with a copyright claim against GRSecurity are the rights-holders to linux. Thank's for repeating what I said before. It's like you're spouting truisms now!:

The sublicensees have a tort claim against GRSecurity (based on tortious interference with quasi-contractual relationship with original licensor)

The licensors have a copyright-infringement claim against GRSecurity (Basis: GRSecurity has treated the agreement in bad faith and thus cannot seek cover under that same agreement: thus absent the agreement GRSecurity is liable for copyright infringement due to their modification and distribution of a derivative work of the licensor's copyrighted work)

The FTC can also get involved due to vertical restraint on trade (but likely won't as GRSec has no market postion).

So, indeed, you stated the claim the sublicensees have against GRSecurity and correctly identified the area of law from which that claim arises! Very good!

You left out the other 2 avenues of attack, but for someone not versed in the law at all that is understandable :).

(Pound sand you piece of shit. )

-----------------------------

You only have permission to modify the linux kernel at all because the linux developers have allowed you to do so, under conditions.
Absent permission you have no right to modify a copyrighted work.

You only have permission to create derivative works of the linux kernel because the linux developers have allowed you to do so, under conditions.
Absent permission you have no right to create derivative works of the linux kernel.

You only have permission to distribute derivative works of the linux kernel the linux developers have allowed you to do so, under conditions.
Absent permission you have no right to distribute derivative works of the linux kernel.

Permission is granted as to the terms in agreement known as the GPL version 2.
One of the terms in the agreement is that all subsequent sublicensees (for lack of a better term) of any derivative work have the same rights as you had under the GPL version2.
That is: they have the right to redistribute (amongst other things.)

If a party treats an agreement in bad faith, the court will not allow them to cover under that agreement.
If a party approaches an agreement with intent to take benifit under that agreement but ignore responsiblilties imposed by that agreement, the agreement will be given no effect by the court.

Thus we have a situation where a clause in the agreement gaurentees subsequent licensees the right to redisistribute.
To follow the terms of the agreement are required inorder to benifit under the agreement.

If one does not follow the terms of the agreement, or treats the agreement in bad faith, all that is left is bare copyright.
All rights reserved. If GRSecurity treates the agreement under which it has licensed Linux, in bad faith, then they are liable for copyright infringement.

GRSecurity, according to the fact patter, has sought to prevent the subsequent redistribution clause in the agreement from having any effect.
.: They have treated the agreement in bad faith, counter to the wishes of the licensors as expressed (in part or in whole) in the agreement.

Very simple. GRSecurity cannot hide under the agreement with the licensor (GPLv2) when it is trying to subvert the agreement with the licensor.
You don't get to hide under the umbrealla while you are trying to break the umbrella

The precise language in the contract between grsecurity and sublicensees is important in anti-trust suits (vertical agreements are outlawed, but the courts have carved out exceptions), but that is not so exactingly relevant to the issue here with the copyright holders and badfaith.

They can sure as hell stop you from redistributing anything and modifying anything (even on your own computer) when you have no cover under the agreement.
If you have treated the agreement in bad faith the court will not allow you to hide under it. You do not get naked benifits while ignoring or trying to frustrate the rest of the agreement: this isn't gibs.

("anything" being their copyrighted work or any derivative works based on it)

You don't get to hide under the umbrella while you are trying to break the umbrella

Read:

Concerning what? For not redistributing source of a binary you don't posess?
There goes your first argument.

Would require the majority of copyright holders. And even then if you ignore this insurmountable obstacle, by law, you can't stop distribution of code from before the terminated agreement.

Now you know why copyright assignment is preferred by FSF.

You keep thinking up avenues of attack as if you're going to do anything.

You can't prove a GPL violation, and there's nothing you can do.

It took you four months to come up with two additional "avenues of attack" that are just as equally worthless. You're delusional.

I'm not reading your schizophrenic arguments.
Last time we had this discussion, I cited statutes concerning redistribution, but I can't be assed to cite them again.

Basically, US copyright law requires your dumbfuck avenue of attack to be consented to by a majority of copyright holders. And even if you can do that, it won't halt redistribution of a derivative work of code BEFORE the agreement was terminated.

You go around in circles, for months, spouting the same shit over and over again. You're schizophrenic, or something.

I suggest that you put yourself out of your misery.

Not quite, it's missing two things absolutely required for threads like these (and it does have threads like these already): post hiding and thread hiding.

Go attend law school and pass the bar first before talking to me again.

You only have permission to modify the linux kernel at all because the linux developers have allowed you to do so, under conditions.
Absent permission you have no right to modify a copyrighted work.

You only have permission to create derivative works of the linux kernel because the linux developers have allowed you to do so, under conditions.
Absent permission you have no right to create derivative works of the linux kernel.

You only have permission to distribute derivative works of the linux kernel the linux developers have allowed you to do so, under conditions.
Absent permission you have no right to distribute derivative works of the linux kernel.

Permission is granted as to the terms in agreement known as the GPL version 2.
One of the terms in the agreement is that all subsequent sublicensees (for lack of a better term) of any derivative work have the same rights as you had under the GPL version2.
That is: they have the right to redistribute (amongst other things.)

If a party treats an agreement in bad faith, the court will not allow them to cover under that agreement.
If a party approaches an agreement with intent to take benifit under that agreement but ignore responsiblilties imposed by that agreement, the agreement will be given no effect by the court.

Thus we have a situation where a clause in the agreement gaurentees subsequent licensees the right to redisistribute.
To follow the terms of the agreement are required inorder to benifit under the agreement.

If one does not follow the terms of the agreement, or treats the agreement in bad faith, all that is left is bare copyright.
All rights reserved. If GRSecurity treates the agreement under which it has licensed Linux, in bad faith, then they are liable for copyright infringement.

GRSecurity, according to the fact patter, has sought to prevent the subsequent redistribution clause in the agreement from having any effect.
.: They have treated the agreement in bad faith, counter to the wishes of the licensors as expressed (in part or in whole) in the agreement.

Very simple. GRSecurity cannot hide under the agreement with the licensor (GPLv2) when it is trying to subvert the agreement with the licensor.
You don't get to hide under the umbrealla while you are trying to break the umbrella

The precise language in the contract between grsecurity and sublicensees is important in anti-trust suits (vertical agreements are outlawed, but the courts have carved out exceptions), but that is not so exactingly relevant to the issue here with the copyright holders and badfaith.

They can sure as hell stop you from redistributing anything and modifying anything (even on your own computer) when you have no cover under the agreement.
If you have treated the agreement in bad faith the court will not allow you to hide under it. You do not get naked benifits while ignoring or trying to frustrate the rest of the agreement: this isn't gibs.

("anything" being their copyrighted work or any derivative works based on it)

Read:

How are my arguments schizophrenic (give examples) and how can you know what you are arguing against without reading them?

I wonder, why is it that people here on Holla Forums believe people like you rather than people like, say, Richard M Stallman, who agreed with my analysis:

---
Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
Richard Stallman (May 31 2016 10:27 PM)

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

If I understand right, this is a matter of GPL 2 on the Linux patches.
Is that right? If so, I think GRsecurity is violating the GPL on
Linux.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

---

PS: RMS is also not opposed to men having young girls as lovers etc.

Govt Lawyers mull other ways to enforce OSS licenses:
dodcio.defense.gov/OpenSourceSoftwareFAQ.aspx#Q:_Who_can_enforce_OSS_licenses.3F

Q: Who can enforce OSS licenses?

Typically enforcement actions are based on copyright violations, and only copyright holders can raise a copyright claim in U.S. court. In the commercial world, the copyright holders are typically the individuals and organizations that originally developed the software. Under the current DoD contracting regime, the contractor usually retains the copyright for software developed with government funding, so in such cases the contractor (not the government) has the right to sue for copyright violation. In some cases, the government obtains the copyright; in those cases, the government can sue for copyright violation.

However, the government can release software as OSS when it has unlimited rights to that software. The government is not the copyright holder in such cases, but the government can still enforce its rights. Although the government cannot directly sue for copyright violation, in such cases it can still sue for breach of license and, presumably, get injunctive relief to stop the breach and money damages to recover royalties obtained by breaching the license (and perhaps other damages as well).

In addition, a third party who breaches a software license (including for OSS) granted by the government risks losing rights they would normally have due to the "doctrine of unclean hands". The doctrine of unclean hands, per law.com, is "a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had 'unclean hands,' the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment." So if the government releases software as OSS, and a malicious developer performs actions in violation of that license, then the government's courts need not enforce any of that malicious developer's intellectual rights to that result. In effect, the malicious developer could lose many or all rights over their license-violating result, even rights they would normally have had! Since OSS licenses are quite generous, the only license-violating actions a developer is likely to try is to release software under a more stringent license... and those will have little effect once they cannot be enforced in court. In short, the government can enforce its licenses, even when it doesn't have the copyright.

Thank you DoD lawyers, ever so many ways to prosecute a case.

the GPL doesn't entitle you to binaries, support, or future business

fuck off

Hol up, what thu fuk is grsecurity all about? Why does linux suck witout it?

Defeat the treating the license in bad faith argument. Comon, we are waiting (we've been waiting).

The world operates in bad faith. Courts, magistrates, litigants, prosecutors, attorneys, the whole of her is standing in bad faith. So why should they make the worldly Spengler, practicing his art on worldly devices, act in good faith?

So where does Alpine Linux fall into this?

What do I need grsecurity for if I have linux, Holla Forums ?

Because when you treat an agreement in bad faith the law will not allow you to then seek protection under that agreement.

It's just how the law works.

You can go into court and make a lay person's argument:

And then be thrown out or held in contempt of court as you have offended the judge and friends.

A lay persons argument is not a legal argument. The law is a completely different languange and structure than normal society. It's like a parallel world. Where in the normal world there are "happenings" "scientific discoveries" "tragedys" "triumphs", in the law there are cases and statutes. What happens in your life as a lay person has very little bearing on the law. You can stamp your feet and scream "YOU ARE CORRUPT SO WHY CANT MY CLIENT BE CORRUPT TOO! YOU JUDGES HAVE NO RIGHT TO JUDGE HIM" and they will laugh at you and throw you out.

Treat an agreement in bad faith.
Try to then seek protection under that agreement.

Thinking the courts will allow you this!
Nope!

Notice that the lay retards have not found a counter to this :) They just say "but you can circumvent the agreement and then in an infringement action seek cover under the same agreeement! it's ok, be clever!", they know not the basis under which the document is given effect.

Dude, Linux, LMFAO!

no one cares about your faith
contract terms are contract terms, and none have been violated
stay mad and lacking support and binaries

you are autistic or an indian and everyone can tell

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

It's a legal term, retard.
You people should be shot.

Treat an agreement in bad faith.

Try to then seek protection under that agreement.

Thinking the courts will allow you this!

Nope!

Notice that the lay retards have not found a counter to this :) They just say "but you can circumvent the agreement and then in an infringement action seek cover under the same agreeement! it's ok, be clever!", they know not the basis under which the document is given effect.

Because when you treat an agreement in bad faith the law will not allow you to then seek protection under that agreement.

It's just how the law works.

You can go into court and make a lay person's argument:

And then be laughed at and lose your case ahhahahhaha fucking mongoloid idiots.

wew lad

go back to tumblr, SJW

When there are backdoors in the CPU,
there is nothing you can do.

Security is a meme-- linus has it right.

when you treat an agreement in bad faith the law will not allow you to then seek protection under that agreement.

GRSecurity has no right to modify the linux kernel absent and agreement, nor distribute derivative works based on it, absent an agreement.

GRSecurity has treated the agreement which allows it to modify the linux kernel and distribute derivative works based on the linux kernel in bad faith as it has also sought to nullify a clause within the agreement that ensures the same rights to sublicensees.

Without protection of the agreement the linux developers have a copyright claim against GRSecurity. GRSecurity's only hope is the cover the agreement gives it; an agreement which it has treated in bad faith and thus would not be given effect by the courts.

It is _VERY_ simple: there are claims on _BOTH_ sides of GRSecurity. However since the Linux kernel devs just seem to hate grsec, and think it's garbage...

Are these the same idiots who were burning money on bullshit like diversity initiatives? I remember gnome doing something like that

I'm getting a nepotism vibe here....

No, there aren't.
Go back to tumblr, SJW.

kek this turbonigger is still screaming in her containment thread

BUMP!!!!!

When there are backdoors in the CPU,
there is nothing you can do.

Security is a meme-- linus has it right.

When there are backdoors in the CPU,
there is nothing you can do.

Security is a meme-- linus has it right.

When there are backdoors in the CPU,
there is nothing you can do.

Security is a meme-- linus has it right.

When there are backdoors in the CPU,
there is nothing you can do.

Security is a meme-- linus has it right.

Prove it.
Argue.
All you say is "NOOOOO!!!!!"

and "YOU LIE ABOUT GRADUATING LAW SCHOOL AND PASSING THE BAR!!!!!"

No I do not.

when you treat an agreement in bad faith the law will not allow you to then seek protection under that agreement.

GRSecurity has no right to modify the linux kernel absent and agreement, nor distribute derivative works based on it, absent an agreement.

GRSecurity has treated the agreement which allows it to modify the linux kernel and distribute derivative works based on the linux kernel in bad faith as it has also sought to nullify a clause within the agreement that ensures the same rights to sublicensees.

Without protection of the agreement the linux developers have a copyright claim against GRSecurity. GRSecurity's only hope is the cover the agreement gives it; an agreement which it has treated in bad faith and thus would not be given effect by the courts.

It is _VERY_ simple: there are claims on _BOTH_ sides of GRSecurity. However since the Linux kernel devs just seem to hate grsec, and think it's garbage...

Notice how they keep claiming "it's legally OK! there is no claim". I explain that there are claims on both sides of GRSecurity, that I've graduated law school, passed the bar, etc.

All they say is "NOOOO!!!! FUCK YOU PEDO U LIIEEEE!!!!"

No arguments just "NOOOO!!! PEEEDDOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! WOMENS RIGHTS FOREVER!!!!"

MikeeUSA is a SJW.
He needs to go back to tumblr.

The reason people insult you in exactly the ways you fear and hate most is because your reaction is funny. Are you aware of that?

The following is a random keyword the nsa monitors via pastebin.com/raw/UWffBQbn: nuclear charges

There is an additional stream down which the Linux rights holders could venture if they dislike what Mr Spengler is doing, in addition to what was discussed above.
Here is a third way the Linux right's holders could come to a remedy (this was discussed at length a year ago, I was told that I "Didn't have a law degree" "was retarded" "is insane"
I would like to draw the attention of the detractors to this excerpt:

Just as I said a year ago in the previous discussion (Holla Forums Holla Forums).
I supposes Mr. Rosen "doesn't have a law degree" "is insane" etc also... *

Thus an additional remedy, for the Linux Rightsholders would be to simply revoke the license apropose to Mr. Spengler.
Then: no more right to modify linux, nor create derivative works. No right to even touch or alter the source code in any way.

But ofcourse you say I am "insane and wrong" and have cited the previous discussion where I said they could simply revoke the license since the GPLv2 does not contain a no revocation clause.
Now then, you could try to claim the GPLv2 is governed under contract law (to dodge the bare license situation), and then in that case we have the full power of contract law on our side and can bring in: usage in trade, course of dealing, lack of full integration (GPLv2 is one page), etc.
Suffice to say: either spengler's license to modify linux can be revoked at will (barring estoppel) if he has permission as a license (property law), or extrinsic evidence that bears on the agreement (such as the intention of the parties, usage in trade of terms, course of dealings, etc) can be brought in to discover the full effect of the agreement (remeber: no integration clause here) since we would be proceeding under contract law (which is what you want if you want what linux is licensed under to be irrevokable). We can discover if all X contributors to linux intended derivative works to be closed in this manner, what the usage in trade was of these terms, what the course of dealings were vis a vis spengler and the linux rightsholders up till this time. Etc.

*

Have a good day.
--MikeeUSA--

No one in this thread says you can't revoke a license, they say that since the Linux kernel has no copyright assignment you simply cannot revoke the license at will.
To revoke you'd require consent from the majority of contributors. Simply not possible in the case of Linux.

Also, in 17 USC 203, it clearly states that just because you've revoked a license of a derivative work to an entity does not mean they have to stop redistributing it.
They can continue redistributing their derivative work of previous versions.
copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203

i.e. everything up until the license was revoked.

They cannot create new derivative works.
Stop confusing the issues.

(It is not very helpful to Spender if he does not have permission to create new derivative works: a month after the last publication a new security error is found in Linux which grsecurity doesn't prevent etc)

In the previous thread they said just that.
Stop confusing the issues.

Some thoughts from around the world:

the Linux Kernel development project could be considered as a 'collective work'. This is because Linus Trovalds is the man author of the proect... as he guides, surpvises, compiles, and finally approves the various contributions that are made on his original source code and program"
Intellectual Property and Development: Theory and Practice - By Rami M. Olwan

(The above is regarding foreign copyright, but the US statute is the same on this issue)

An interesting way of looking at things, I'm not sure if a US court would go that way, to decide that Linux was simply a decades long collective work under the auspices of Linus.

--DannyBee on Joint Works under US copyright.

What linux really is is a very long string of derivative works.
It is clearly not a joint work, under current copyright formulations.

Each non de minimus patch, with sufficent originality for copyrightability, created in accordance with the license grant, that is added to the linux source tree creates a new derivative work with it's own copyright.
Thus if there are a number of changes in time:
Original+A+B+C+D+E+F+G

The rightsholders of each addition have seperate copyright.
(Which, in a way, "relys" on the previous grant, but aslong as they obeyed the grant there is no problem)
Thus Linus has copyright, the creator of the patch A has seperate copyright (IF, and ONLY IF they had permission to create the derivative work from Linus),
the creator of B has seperate copyright (IF, and ONLY IF they had permission from Linus and the creator of A)
the creator of C has seperate copyright (IF, and ONLY IF they had permission from Linus and the creator of A and the creator of B)
etc, etc.

This is how derivative works work.

Go take a course before you open your mouth next time, dipshit anti-marry female children SJW piece of garbage.

(That is, with each derivative work added, more (seperate) copyright rights arise)

How derivatives work is that you can't stop anyone from redistributing a derivative work of shit from before the license was revoked.
You posting all that shit doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

What's hilarious is that you roleplay as a lawyer and yet don't have any experience in copyright law yet are issuing opinions on an anime imageboard.

So here's the reality for you: you're a mentally ill roleplayer on an anime imageboard who thinks that his ramblings are affecting or changing anything. All of this is for naught.

Nothing you do will change the fact that there are no known GPL violations in this situation, and the fact that you will never be able to convince anyone, let alone a vast majority of Linux kernel developers, to revoke the license.

And even if they were to do so, that does not stop GRSec from distributing code before the license was revoked. It's in the statute, I linked to it, and you went on a long-winded rant.

You are mentally ill and powerless. No one, especially not Linux developers, want to hear your bullshit. Considering they've banned you from LKML multiple times.
The only escape I see for you, from your hell, is blowing your fucking brains out of the back of your skull.

fucking this, finally someone gets it.

meant to quote this

Once the license is revoked Mr Spengler can no-longer update GRSecurity. The business would be done at that point. Furthermore, any licensor in the chain of derivative works can revoke license to his copyright.

Linux is a long long long string of derivative works. It is not a joint work (there is no joint-copyright to linux).

I am a graduate of a law school and a person whom passed the bar. I also program libre vidya. What are you?

Since spengler is seeking to frustrate the purpose of the agreement; that is he is seeking and succeeding in defeating the free-redistribution clause, the courts will not allow him to seek cover under the document. He has treated it in bad faith and will not be able to, at the same time, cover under it.

It is very simple, and you do not once give a counter argument other than "nooo you're insane!!!". This shows you have no knowledge of the law: you've not studied it.

However since the GPLv2 lacks a no-revocation clause, the license could simply be revoked.
A majority is unnecessary as, as stated above, linux is not a work of joint copyright.

Secondly in US law the statutes are only the bare bones of the law. Everything is fleshed out via case law. You screaming "I linked the statute" means almost nothing. You do not know how to interpret it, and you ignore the courts interpretation anyhow. You claim linux is a work of joint-copyright when it clearly is not.

I wonder why this piece of shit keeps coming back to argue? He's like a frothing-at-the-mouth dog. He's not studied in the law, yet assumes he knows any of the terms of art (the fact that he imagines that the Linux kernel is a work of joint-copyright just underlines this: he saw "joint" in the statute and just assumed that ment any work with more than one author contributing... lol).

No one's arguing here, they're simply pointing out why you're delusional.

You have been banned from the LKML almost a dozen times now, no one wants to hear your bullshit.
You're yelling at the sky. No one cares. There are no known GPL violations here. And no one wants to hear your "legal opinions" because they're obviously coming from someone who's mentally ill.

How does it feel, that the kernel developers have banned you multiple times and don't want to hear your bullshit?

back again to reveal to you your problem

You keep talking in the "King's english". You're gonna have to come down off your high horse if you want the commoners to respond better, and start speaking in the vulgar manner. You see that I understand both sides of this.

You're speaking in a language that is simultaneously in support of the system that has allowed this situation with grsec to arise (therefore frustrating the commoners' ability to run free software of their choice), in order to argue against grsec. You seem correct with the legal arguments, but the undercurrent of distrust due to your use of the language and continuing to make known your private beliefs will make whatever wisdom you have foolishness.

With that in mind and out of the way, my question to you is this:
In the event of this being brought before the courts and a judge rules against grsecs property holder, and says that grsec project has indeed been frustrating the terms of the license under which they've been releasing, developing, and modifying software in bad faith, what would you want to see happen as a resolution? What do you expect would result from such a ruling?

Mikee plz go

nice
just because he's a devil's advocate doesn't mean he's playing it here having a discussion with himself

do we really read so similar?

What is occurring is that the agreement allows GRSecurity to create derivative works from the Linux Kernel source code.
However that same agreement requires that GRSecurity allow sublicensees(for lack of a better word) to redistribute those derivative works.

Without the permission from the grant, GRSecurity has no right to modify the source code, even for personal use, under
US copyright law.

Courts do not allow one to on one had cover under an agreement, while on the other hand subverting another clause in the same agreement. This is called acting in bad-faith towards the agreement.

Another note (if GRSecurity were to claim that there is not agreement, just a bare license, even though they've been in
communication with the kernel team for decades now):
Bare licenses are revokable at will by the grantor and the GPLv2 lacks a non-revocation clause (thus arguing estoppel isn't so easy). Even then court will often apply contract law principals even to a bare license.

Another note:
Linux is not a work of joint-copyright (for those looking over the 1976 statute).
(Under joint copyright the copyright is owned 100pct by each contributor).
Instead it appears to be a very very very very very long string of derivative works.

Derivative works, when created with the permission of the copyright holder, also create
a seperate claim of copyright in their creation.

Thus the claims start to stack:
Linux-A-B-C-D-E-F-G-etc

So if G is violating the agreement, it could be argued that all copyright holders of a preceeding interest each have a cause of action against G. This is different from joint copyright where more than 1/2 of the rightsholders have to agree to bring an action.

However someone knowlegeble in procedure would have to chime in here, specifically in relation to US copyright claims.
Often there are court rules to limit who can sue further than normal generically for any old suit.

If the court treats the situation as one governed only by a bare license, I would expect the victor to pray to the court for statutory damages. What else could they do? Copyright alone doesn't give much flexibility.

If the court accepts there was some relationship between the kernel team and GRSecurity (they've been in communication for a decade), I would expect an equitable solution to be asked for instead, such as specific performance of the terms of the agreement (thus GRSecurity ceasing it's action in preventing redistribution of the derivative work).

...

Thanks for your wonderful contribution to the discussion, cattle.

So tell me, cattle, do you feel that GRSecurity should beable to just create a derivative work without permission from those who created the originating work?

Yes? Fuck you piece of shit.

No? Well then what other than the license given will they be using?

Also I noticed you disparaged using the "GPL".

Version 1? 2? 3? They're all different licenses, especially 2 vs 3. 3 actually has a no revocation clause to help with arguing estoppel. Oh you were just making a retarded quip right? And pedos should be castrated too and all you need in the new testament not the "demon god from the old testament" correct? Fuck you you fucking piece of shit.

Nothing more to say, eh?

There's nothing more to say because there's no obvious GPL violation here, and the kernel developers don't care what you have to say after they've banned you dozens of times from LKML.
You roleplaying being a lawyer and rambling about "avenues of attack" is just frosting on top of the shit that will never happen, because LKML doesn't want to hear your bullshit.
You lost, get over it. The only ones with standing are those who are recieving the patches. No one has to redistribute anything to you. And if you end up with hardware running GRSec and the vendor refuses to redistribute, then you have a case.
But the fact is that no one cares. Go roleplay on LKML some more and get banned for the twentienth time.

So what year did you pass the bar, piece of SHIT?

You don't know what the FUCK you are talking about.

The copyright holders DO have standing.

Also I notice you ignore and

Why is that?

Also you scare quote Avenues of attack? Why? When building a case often there are multiple ways to approach it. We call this Avenues of Attack.

The only reason such a lawsuit should be considered anyway is for the principle of the thing, but I don't see a reality where companies/people routinely wrote high quality, useful code and used this model to withhold it for money because if your code was so damn good and so demanded, you'd license out closed source copies of it.