Are you a lawyer,
Yes (also a programmer)
acting on behalf of someone
No
Sue to what end?
I wish I could say "to free the source", a court isn't going to order
specific performance where there is no contract, and there is no
contract between the Copyright owners and GRSec. Just a bare (and
Main:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/17/52 (GPL Rescission announcement)
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/26/420 (Debunking of SFConservancy's
statement)
Anti-Rescind:
ZDNet "Debunking" lulz.com article (by quoting PJ the paralegal, who got
it wrong):
https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-happens-if-
Is there any news on this.
Are they ever going to release another open version?
Why do they get to violate the GPL by adding an additional restrictive
term (ex: we will punish you if you redistribute the source), when their
patch is a non-separable derivative work of the kernel?
Author of GPC-Slots2 threatens to sue "John Doe" who violated GPL
recission.
(And who also added a "Code of Conduct", which Author of GPC-Slots2 is
opposed to on principal,
and who decided to impersonate Author aswell, registering a false
address in his nom-de-guerre)
http://8ch.net/tech/res/
Some updates:
http://8ch.net/tech/res/1018729.html#1024398
Anonymous 01/29/19 (Tue) 08:32:45 No.1024591
1024400
I rescind the license from you.
I am going to sue you if I find out who you are.
1024400
#This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
#modify it under t
Some updates (2):
http://8ch.net/tech/res/1018729.html#1024398
Anonymous 01/29/19 (Tue) 08:47:02 No.1024601
1024597
HOW MUCH DID YOU FUCKING PAY ME?
Nothing. Thank God for that.
ARE WE IN A CONTRACT?
No.
IT IS A BARE LICENSE.
Is this lawyer speak? I'm not a lawyer, sorry.
I CAN RESCIND
Some updates (3):
http://8ch.net/tech/res/1018729.html
Anonymous 01/29/19 (Tue) 09:23:25 No.1024608
1024606
https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4
Sorry lad.
Anonymous 01/29/19 (Tue) 09:25:16 No.1024609
1024604
Cites previously anonomyous paralegal
https://gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/blob/master/DMCA%20Takedown%20Notice.txt
In the USA, a license is revocable (absent an attached interest.)
(An attached interest generally arises when a licensee paid for a
copyright license contract.
Thus they "buy" the "terms" and the courts will hold th
https://gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/
Is gone after a successful DMCA take-down by the Author (MikeeUSA).
Backstory: Author (MikeeUSA) revokes license from "JohnDoe".
"JohnDoe" defies revocation and uploads the work to gitlab.
"JohnDoe" modifies work to "remove sexism".
MikeeUSA issues a DMCA
There are two iron laws when it comes to the linux-kernel and it's
facing towards the larger world.
1) The grsecurity-pax patch is absolutely vital if one wishes to not be
hacked by chinese(TM). (And has been vital for the last 15+ years.)
2) GRSecurity is _blatantly_ violating the GPL by adding
On 2019-01-23 20:46, Ivan Ivanov wrote:
Interesting point of view. Well, to be honest it seems to me that
Linux kernel sacrifices the security for the sake of progress, so it
is quite bloated at the moment and I am not sure that even GRSecurity
could fix it. Linux really needs to stop adding new
Original Message
Subject: Re: GRSec is vital to Linux security
Date: 2019-01-24 16:25
From: Boris Lukashev
To: linuxgpl...@redchan.it
You've never heard of VMware, I take it? Its a proprietary half Linux
which beats GPL suits with strong arm tactics and technicalities. Unlike
On 2019-01-24 15:31, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
Do you have some actual proposals / patches ?
Sue Open Source Security / Bradly Spengler for copyright infringement.
Seek his profits as damages. I doubt you'll be able to get specific
performance since the GPL is not a contact in t
One note: If you are going to defend your copyrights and the idea of the
GPL, do not rely on the "free software legal groups".
The "free software legal groups" exist only to commit legal malpractice.
The guy who ran the SFConservancy (Bradly Kuhn IIRC) isn't even a
lawyer. He advises "clients
There is ample standing to sue. GRSec made it's "access agreement"
public,
which included terms to prevent redistribution (if you redistribute, we
punish you). Which is a direct violation of the "no additional
restrictive terms"
clause in the GPL.
Why won't anyone bring a copyright lawsuit?
A
15 matches
Mail list logo
