On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:33:35 -0700, Bruce wrote in message <cak2mwou78yh52ubslvv_u5gwej+1qypw1jrmzfkdnhj4sf1...@mail.gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 2:27 PM, para...@dyne.org <para...@dyne.org> > wrote: > > > > > There is very little ground to actually make up a court case. > > Nobody has been blocked yet, and nobody has publicly > > (re)distributed the non-public patches. > > > Because grsecurity.net's stated policy (which could also be called > "threat") has created a chilling effect upon such redistribution. IMO > that is enough to be actionable. > > I have a customer who does paid distribution of enhanced GPL > software, but they don't make the threat and they put everything in > the public within 9 months to a year after distribution to their paid > customers. So, they can get away with that, but once the threat is > known, IMO it's a violation. ..I agree this violation is actionable, FWIW. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
