Oh exaulted one, I am so sorry to have wasted your inbox space.
You see we all live for you, exalted aryan queen!
Some of us care about the legal aspects of "copyleft".
Without enforcement there is no reason for anyone to contribute to
linux.
There is a simple trade: we trade our labor for your labor.
On 2017-06-15 16:05, J wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, W Stacy Lockwood
<vladina...@gmail.com> wrote:
Did you not see Liam's reply, or do you just want to add nothing but
noise
to this list?
Given the repeated spamming the list, the cross posting, and replying
on this list to response external to this list (oh the joys of
crossposting), can we just chuck this account into a moderation bin
and let him/her rant into a bit bucket?
I'm on both the Ubuntu lists, so I'm getting these double... yes, I
can filter this myself, but that doesn't help the larger group...
On Jun 15, 2017 10:51, <aconcernedfoss...@airmail.cc> wrote:
It's an obvious blatant violation. He is not allowed to add
additional
terms, but being a "clever" programmer it seems that he has decided
that
because the additional term that he (and seemingly PaxTeam) has
imposed is
not written within the four corners of license grant document but
instead is
communicated in some other way that """""doesn't make it an
additional
term""""" and he has """"cleverly circumvented the linux copyright
terms"""", which obviously is not the case but other random
programmers will
argue and swear it's fine till hell freezes over and get very angry
when
someone with a legal background informs them otherwise.
I think many people are not aware of the violation because it's only
been
a month since GRSecurity pulled the sourcecode: it was almost a moot
point
before then with no real damage. Such is no-longer the case.
On 2017-06-15 15:43, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000,
aconcernedfoss...@airmail.cc
wrote:
Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly
violating
the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?
He is also violating the license grant, Courts would not be fooled
by
his
scheme to prevent redistribution.
The license grant the Linux Kernel is distributed under disallows
the
imposition of additional terms. The making of an understanding that
the
derivative work must not be redistributed (lest there be
retaliation) is
the
imposition of an additional term. The communication of this threat
is
the
moment that GRSecurity violates the license grant. Thence-forth
modification, making of derivative works, and distribution of such
is a
violation of the Copyright statute. The concoction of the
transparent
scheme
shows that it is a willful violation, one taken in full knowledge
by
GRSecurity of the intention of the original grantor.
If you feel that what they are doing is somehow violating your
copyright
on the Linux kernel, then you have the right to take legal action if
you
so desire. To tell others what to do, however, is not something
that
usually gets you very far in the world.
Best of luck!
greg k-h
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-us...@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-us...@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
