>
> >Implying libre software is always free
Case in point: GRSecurity patch to the linux kernel:
Costs tens of thousands of dollars.
No right to redistribute (see: Stable Patch Agreement).
BTW this shows that the GPL has no teeth.
A derivative work of a GPL'd work, and still removes your right to redistribute.
Right? Right?
(Right?)
Other urls found in this thread:
perens.com
perens.com
twitter.com
You can redistribute the GRSecurity patch. The right is not removed, but they will not sign a new agreement or extend it if you do.
Also, the code is stripped of all architectures you do not need.
thats just useless bloat. it would be in the kernel already if it was useful.
That is a retaliation for redistribution: assessing a penalty for the exercising of a right specifically enumerated by the original licensors.
The GPLv2 forbids the inclusion of any additional terms (between the licensee of the gpl'd work and the distributee of the derivative work) that add restrictions beyond what are in the GPLv2 itself.
(GPLv2 section 6)
From perens:
By operating under their policy of terminating customer relations upon distribution of their GPL-licensed software, Open Source Security Inc., the owner of Grsecurity, creates an expectation that the customer’s business will be damaged by losing access to support and later versions of the product, if that customer exercises their re-distribution right under the GPL license. Grsecurity’s Stable Patch Access Agreement adds a term to the GPL prohibiting distribution or creating a penalty for distribution. GPL section 6 specifically prohibits any addition of terms. Thus, the GPL license, which allows Grsecurity to create its derivative work of the Linux kernel, terminates, and the copyright of the Linux Kernel is infringed. The GPL does not apply when Grsecurity first ships the work to the customer, and thus the customer has paid for an unlicensed infringing derivative work of the Linux kernel developers with all rights reserved. The contract from the Linux kernel developers to both Grsecurity and the customer which is inherent in the GPL is breached.
If I informed person A that the creators of X give him the right to paint X red, however if A paints X red I will kill him.... Does A have the right to paint X red or have I imposed an addition restriction?
Now if I make A sign a memorandum to this understanding have imposed a
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted by the creators of X?
>You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
"Hey, buddy, if you use the redistribution right granted in the license.. it'll cost you, it will fucking cost you. Oh and can you sign this document memorializing the fact that you understand that it will cost you and that I wish for you to be restricted from redistributing the work? Thanks buddy"
>Currently, Grsecurity is a commercial product and is distributed only to paying customers. Under their Stable Patch Access Agreement, customers are warned that if they redistribute the Grsecurity patch, as would be their right under the GPL, that they will be assessed a penalty: they will no longer be allowed to be customers, and will not be granted access to any further versions of Grsecurity. GPL version 2 section 6 explicitly prohibits the addition of terms such as this redistribution prohibition.
Tell me this, you fucking contract programmers (aka: Normies).
Why is it that you think you can violate the copyright of libre works? Why is it that you think you can ignore an explicit license term that says you cannot impose additional restrictions which go against the rights granted to the distributees?
Your argument seems to be "because I did FUCKING WORK" "AMERICA".
"They gave it away for free, fuck their license terms, I GET MONEY. TO THAT END I CAN ADD ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ME AND DISTRIBUTEE REGARDING THE DERIVATIVE WORK, FUCK THE ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT OWNER"
Why is it that normie contract programmers think that they have any rights to modify a libre work outside of the license grant?
When the license grant explicitly says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", why do you think that you can impose a restriction on "recipients' exercise of the rights" anyway?
Your "Business rights" do not trump strict copyright. Yes, the licensor can say "nope you cannot do business that way regarding my property nor any derived work of my property" (as-long as there is no discrimination against a protected class etc).
The copyright owner OWNS the right to decide who can, and under what conditions, a derivative work may be made.
Here the (C) owner said: you can make a derivative work ONLY IF you do not restrict it.
Anyone making a derivative work, but restricting the exercise of the redistribution clause is VIOLATING THE COPYRIGHT of the linux owners. Anyone imposing an _agreement_ to restrict said redistribution is VIOLATING THE COPYRIGHT of the linux owners: and the grant is automatically recinded and there is no-longer ANY permission to modify or create distributed works of the underlying work (linux)
Sup Forums Can you tell me why the contract programmers haven't responded?
Are they rusty on their federal copyright law?
The GPL was a mistake.
Wow, these guys are complete scumbags
they should just change to a bsd license
M8 you can't exactly relicense the GPL away, then what would be the point?
>grnigger will have to pay more than half a million dollars after having lost their sue action
hahahaha
yeah the bsd'd minix turned out to be so much better
Why are GPL advocates obsessed with BSD, like it's the only other license.
viral licenses are cancer
Who the hell do you know that acts like this? I don't just take someone's work just because. I use FOSS because I like it but I'd never violate the GPL. That's what BSD and MIT licensed software is for. The devs purposefully licensed their software in that way so I have a right to use it as I please. The GPL does not grant me that privilege.
Intel could breach BSD license too as they "forgot" to mention that joke license on their product. GPL infringement is common as fuck but the answer is more GPL hostility (toybox background story) thanks to Google.
>yeah the bsd'd minix turned out to be so much better
It was MIT
how is that different
Check it again.
B T F O
grsecurity is cancer
>GPL hostility
There's a lot of this around nowadays for what ever reason. I think some sort of a campaign must be organized to bring GPL back as the preferred libre license. Just a side note t: otherfag.
>Costs tens of thousands of dollars.
$4000 annually I think
>No right to redistribute (see: Stable Patch Agreement).
you can redistribute, it just means they'll stop supplying you with the patches
>BTW this shows that the GPL has no teeth.
the copyright holders (ie kernel developers) have to sue
anyway I don't think there's anything wrong with it
one of the Intel subsidiaries used their non-commercial-only code in commercial products so they decided enough is enough and went down this route
also a friendly reminder that you're not entitled to free shit
>also a friendly reminder that you're not entitled to free shit
Exactly. The makers of grsecurity aren't entitled to breaking the license terms of their software.
More like working on a GPL'd project was a mistake, GRSecurity would be heroes if
they had worked entirely on BSD's, instead they went with muh Linux
/thread
Tell that to systemd
>suing over online comments
wtf is wrong with grsecurity?
BSD already has mitigations, user.
The expression “the Linux kernel” can easily be misunderstood as meaning “the kernel of Linux” and implying that Linux must be more than a kernel. You can avoid the possibility of this misunderstanding by saying or writing “the kernel, Linux” or “Linux, the kernel.”
>American company steals your code
>go apeshit
>chinks and norks steal your code
>crickets chirping
Sure is Zhang ITT.
>From: Linus Torvalds
>Date: Fri Jun 23 2017 - 00:43:10 EST
>Don't bother with grsecurity.
>Their approach has always been "we don't care if we break anything,
>we'll just claim it's because we're extra secure".
>The thing is a joke, and they are clowns. When they started talking
>about people taking advantage of them, I stopped trying to be polite
>about their bullshit.
>Their patches are pure garbage.
>Linus
Alpine Linux comes with the grsecurity patch.
>we don't care if we break anything,
>we'll just claim it's because we're extra secure
WELL NO FUCKING SHIT
>Linux kernel has insecure bullshit
>Programs depend on the insecure bullshit
>Grsecurity fixed he insecure bullshit
>Linus: "REEEEEEEEEEEE"
grsecurity is literal cancer, that cunt developer can go fuck himself for all I care.
isnt the "unstable" version free or did they remove that too? i tried it once and it worked fine but its not really that important to have if its not some shared server.
Asian men are harmless and Asian women are cute, I'll allow it.