Thread 106346638

retard
RMS and the FSF have nothing to do with the Linux kernel and have no weight on the decisions of what gets accepted or not. You can always use Hurd if you really want FSF-approved stuff only.

>>106346653
Grsecurity includes GCC plugins, which fall under it's "no redistribution" codicil.

It is how it does much of it's work securing the linux kernel.

GCC was written in such a way, by RMS, such that all plugins are non-seperable derivative works. And thus must be under the GPL.

So no, DIPSHIT: I am not a retard.

>>106346653
Grsecurity includes GCC plugins, which fall under it's "no redistribution" codicil.

Going to take back your "retard" comment DIP FUCKING SHIT?
(ofcourse not, you're just mad a "pedo" is communicating with RMS)

Maybe you should use a free and open source text editor to format your wall of text before asking people
to
read it

>>106346700
nice poem
bro

>>106346653
>retard
> RMS and the FSF have nothing to do with the Linux kernel and have no weight on the decisions of what gets accepted or not. You can always use Hurd if you really want FSF-approved stuff only.

"RETARD!!!"
"The FSF has __NOTING__ to do with GCC"

Do you hear yourself asshole zoomer faggot?
Every millenial, gen X, and boomer knows Grsecurity is not "just" a linux patch: it is also GCC plugins. Which is how it does alot of it's security work.

You are claiming the FSF has NOOOTTTHIINNGGG to do with GCC.

>>106346638 (OP)
RMS lives off of the proprietary bill gates virus and bill gates vaccine

>>106346638 (OP)
RMS is a great man but sadly people grow old with time. You cannot expect them him to burn as brightly as back in the days.
We need to carry his torch and rely on ourselves now, or we will fail just like the Germans did.

Please give him a rest.

>>106346700
Changing the subject.
You didn't know that Grsecurity is also GCC plugins.

I called you out, I'm contacting RMS over the actual issue they can sue under. Which is the GCC plugins. They have standing with those.

You did not KNOW Grsecurity is part GCC plugins. You're just mad that _I_ let people know YHWH allows child brides, so you try to derail my thread.

Every _SINGLE_ Millenial, Boomer, and GenX free-software person knows that Grsecurity distributes GCC plugins under its "no redistribution" codicil.

ZOOMER ___FAGGOT___
YHWH allows child brides.

>>106346638 (OP)
someone give me the basic gestalt of what happened

>>106346734
>RMS is a great man but sadly people grow old with time. You cannot expect them him to burn as brightly as back in the days.
>We need to carry his torch and rely on ourselves now, or we will fail just like the Germans did.
>Please give him a rest.
No rest for the "wicked".
No prayer for the dying.

Your only friends are those that give you sweet young girls.
We, for RMS, are a tool. (to create the Free Software OS)
And RMS, for us, is such as well.

We did our part.
He must do ours.

>>106346752
A terminally ill schizo has had enough of working for free while thinking some higher ideal would reward him for it.

>>106346752
>someone give me the basic gestalt of what happened
Grsecurity ripped off GCC, then relicensed the derivative work under GPL+N

But the +N isn't what you think.
It's "No Redistribution".

Think of it as one of those proprietary CC-NA licenses, but for "Free-Software".
Their derivative work is non-seperable from GCC; so it "must" be under the GPL without any extra terms.
Grsecurity just decided to add extra terms anyway.

Substantially all FSF money goes to promoting terrible cartoon artwork by american women and faggots who oppose loli brides.
And a very small amount of FSF money goes to promoting fairly good anime artwork by a Japanese guy; which promotes Loli brides in Free Software. (YHWH allows child brides explicitly), but this is a very recent addition.

So most of the FSF donations are wasted.
Only a very very small amount does anything good.

FSF never sues anyone.
And has basically violated the agreement it had with the people that transferred their code over to it: as they did so under the understaning and claim that the FSF would enforce the copyrights.

Which it refuses to do. As it wants to pay women.

>>106346793
Since when am I "terminally ill"?
(you won't answer this)
Since when am I "schizo"
(you won't answer this)

You're a zoomer that got caught out not knowing the basics of Grsecurity vs GPL; you didn't even know it's done by GCC plugins to a great extent.

What you were mad about is that YHWH allows child brides and I'm happy about that.
So you tried to cast shade on this thread.

>>106346793
YHWH allows child brides.
The world was made by him.
Just as the free C compiler was made by RMS.
>>"The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."
>>
>>RMS on June 28th, 2003 https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html
>>
>>--------------------------
>>
>>"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "
>>
>>RMS on June 5th, 2006) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party
>>
>>--------------------------
>>
>>" There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
>>
>>Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. "
>>
>>RMS on Jan 4th, 2013) https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia

>>106346638 (OP)
the grsec ongoing situation since 2003 or so is the reason why no body gives a fuck about licenses, everyone steal code and don't contribute back as expected, whatever the fuck are they gonna do about it anyways

>>106346816
>relicensed the derivative work under GPL+N
Their website says it's GPLv2.

>>106346862
Asshole fuck: they are lying to you idiot.
The "No redistribution" codicil is in a separate writhing they make customers sign.
Which you can download a copy from bruce peren's site.

YOU think that's "fine" "because it is in a separate writing" and that the GPL is "only protecting it's own text, not the programming code" from having "additional restrictions" added (such as "you cannot redistribute this derivative work, if you do we will keep your money and give you nothing")

>>106346860
The violation started around 2017-2019.

>>106346759
You can complain to daddy Stallman only for so long. What will you do after that inevitable point in time has happened?
Cringy movie quotes or mottoes don't change reality.
The transition to a healthy FOSS world without RMS at the helm should have been made long ago. Instead the FSS was allowed to grow out of control and the most everybody did is defend RMS on twitter.
If this continues then the GPL and FOSS in general will completely fail not too far in the future. But RMS, sadly, cannot fix this now.

>>106346862
https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/
?https://new.perens.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/06/grsecstablepatchaccessagreement_additionalterms.pdf

https://perens.com/static/OSS_Spenger_v_Perens/3_17-cv-04002-LB/doc1/pdf/40-2.pdf

Page 9: Stable Patch Access Agreement.
That's where the No redistribution terms are.

Again: YOU believe that the "GPL" is only protecting the text of itself. So this won't phase you. Because you are a white person (an anti-loli bride faggot)

>>106346931
>FSS
*FSF

>>106346931
>You can complain to daddy Stallman only for so long. What will you do after that inevitable point in time has happened?
We'll have to use self help, direct action, and copyright clawbacks.

You want RMS gone because "he's a pedo", and you want Free Software run by christians, feminists, and trans-faggots.

When it was built by, and for, Hackers. Which you are not.
YHWH allows child brides.

>>106346934
>The User has all rights and obligations granted by grsecurity's software license, version 2 of the GNU GPL.
It says it right in the PDF you linked.

>>106346862
>Redistribution
>The User has all rights and obligations granted by grsecurity's software license, version 2 of the GNU GPL. These rights and obligations are listed at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html).

Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that
redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit
obligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of access
to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs.

>Making and using copies of the stable patches within a single organization is not considered redistribution (see the GPL FAQ here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#InternalDistribution (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0- (/index.php) grsecurity https://grsecurity.net/agree/agreement.php 1 of 3 07/07/2017 10:28 PM Case 3:17-cv-04002-LB Document 40-2 Filed 11/24/17 Page 9 of 13 faq.en.html#InternalDistribution)).
>If the User has received pricing for the stable patches on a specific product, use of the patches on additional products without the consent of the Company will result in termination of access to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs.


------------------------
As you can see: GPL+N
GPL+Notwithstanding

>>106346955
>We'll have to use self help, direct action, and copyright clawbacks.
why not sooner? Why not do it WITH him and not after? Why is RMS the only person people associate with the GPL and not others? How is a movement of this nature so centralized?
>You want RMS gone because "he's a pedo", and you want Free Software run by christians, feminists, and trans-faggots.
What a bold assumption to make, anon. I like RMS and don't see any wrongdoing on his part, not even with his opinions.
But i do see a distinct lack of action from the dEfEnDeRs Of FoSs.

I am sadly a zoom zoom so i could not be there when it mattered the most but anon, you sound 100% like a cuckservative complaining about muh rights and muh freedom while being the person responsible for letting all of this happen.
You let this community be infiltrated and subverted. You were too reliant on another person thinking for you. And now you cry about about your own actions and look for fault in others.

>>106346993
Dip shit, fucking asshole: They add a NO REDISTRIBUTION codicil RIGHT THERE.

>Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that
>redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit
>obligations under the GPL to ________User's customers______ will result in termination of access
>to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs.

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

It is saying you MAY NOT REDISTRIBUTE AT WILL.
Which is NOT a redstrition the GPL places.
and is an ADDITIONAL REDSTRITION NOT WITHIN THE GPL

>>106347009
>access to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs.
That's not part of the GPL.

>>106347037
"DURRRR THE GPL IS JUST TRYING TO PROTECT ___ITSELF____ NOT THE SOURCE CODE!!!!"

As I said: we have a fundamental disagreement.
You think the "no additional restrictions" text in the GPL is about not changing the GPL document itself.

You have taken this position because it is opposite to my position, and you're simply mad about "pedos" and "non christians" in Free Software.

I understand that the GPL applies to the actual copyrighted work; and is governing the relationship regarding that Work between creators of derivative works and their customers. It says that the creator of the derivative work may not impose any restrictions that the GPL itself does not impose.

Here GRSECURITY creates a negative covenant with the goal to enforce and punish any redistribution of the derivative work.
Which has been successful: it's never leaked.

RMS and Linus both stated, originally, that the Goal of the GPL was to cause the software to be free and to keep it from being closed up. That is the purpouse of the GPL. Here that purpose is frustrated and defeated.

You think the GPL is just there to protect the GPL.

>>106347086
>You think the GPL is just there to protect the GPL.
No one has ever claimed this.

Redistribution
>The User has all rights and obligations granted by grsecurity's software license,
>version 2 of the GNU GPL. These rights and obligations are listed at
>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
>(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html).
Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that
redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit
>obligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of access
to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs.
>Making and using copies of the stable patches within a single organization is not
>considered redistribution (see the GPL FAQ here: https://www.gnu.org
>/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#InternalDistribution
>(https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-
>(/index.php)
>grsecurity https://grsecurity.net/agree/agreement.php
>1 of 3 07/07/2017 10:28 PM
>Case 3:17-cv-04002-LB Document 40-2 Filed 11/24/17 Page 9 of 13
>faq.en.html#InternalDistribution)).
>If the User has received pricing for the stable patches on a specific product, use
>of the patches on additional products without the consent of the Company will
>result in termination of access to future updates of grsecurity stable patches
>and changelogs.
>Works Made For Hire
>No work performed in the process of grsecurity stable patch maintenance or
>changes made to the grsecurity patches as part of a support agreement shall be
>considered "works made for hire". Unless a specific arrangement has been put
>forth otherwise by the Company, the Company retains all Intellectual Property
>rights and will publish these changes under the GPL to all customers.

Why isn't RMS/FSF doing something about this? I think I remember you posting a response from him on that before.
Also, you're right about the GPL infringement thing, but damn you really do type like a schizo. If you improve your writing style people will be more likely to listen to you. I say this as someone who wants your point to be heard.

>Governing Law
>This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
>of Pennsylvania without regard to the conflicts of laws provisions thereof.
>Exclusive jurisdiction and venue for any action arising under this Agreement is in
>the federal and state courts having jurisdiction over The Company's principal
>office, and both parties hereby consent to such jurisdiction and venue for this
>purpose.
Termination
While the Company aims only to terminate access to the stable patches in the
event of willful violation of the terms in this agreement, we reserve the right to
revoke access to the stable patches and changelogs at any time for any reason.
In the event of termination, the Company will at its own discretion refund
payment for any remaining pre-paid period.
>Waiver of Liability
The Company is not liable for any claims, damages, costs, expenses or loss of
any kind that may be made or incurred as a result of either the User's access or
revocation of access to grsecurity stable patches.

>>106347140
It would cost millions of dollars and the status quo is better than what would happen if they lost.
If more people started to copy them it might become worth it to sue them.

>>106347140
>Why isn't RMS/FSF doing something about this?
Rms is not god and doesn't live at maximim strength forever sadly, and the FSF has been infiltrated and is useless now. This GPL violation is not the first sadly that was allowed to go on a long period of time.
But some people expect the now useless FSF they neglected, and poor RMS to still do all the work.

>>106347140
>Why isn't RMS/FSF doing something about this? I think I remember you posting a response from him on that before.
email him about it: rms@gnu.org
Also CC bruce perens (bruce@perens.com) perhaps, and ESR esr@thyrsus.com

Tell us what he says perhaps if you wish.
If more people ask, maybe they'd do simething.

>Also, you're right about the GPL infringement thing, but damn you really do type like a schizo. If you improve your writing style people will be more likely to listen to you. I say this as someone who wants your point to be heard.
I'm a lawyer and a programmer,
most lawyers have secretaries to do their normal writing,
and legal secretaries to do their legal briefs, emails, and memos.
IE: editors.

They give them ... original writings...
the secretaries, legal secretaries, and paralegals all essentially act as editors.
I don't have any of that.
So you get the original product.

>>106346638 (OP)
Jesus, leave him alone he's dying of cancer for fucks sake

>>106347105
> >>106347086 (You)
> >You think the GPL is just there to protect the GPL.
>No one has ever claimed this.
It's exactly what you, constructively, are claiming.

The GPL does NOT contain a provision
"You may not redistribute to non customers"

The GPL DOES contain a provision
"You must not add additional restrictions not found in the GPL"

Here GRsecurity adds a provision:
"You must not redistribute Grsecurity to non-customers"

That is NOT a provision found within the GPL,
and IS a restriction.

This restriction is enforced by
1) termination of the business agreement with Grsecurity
2) keeping of the money the customer paid to Grsecurity.

It's an enforced negative covenant.
A restriction.

AND it's been successful.

>>106347180
>>106347182
>>106347199

"Don't do anything"
"here's why"
"don't even email the people that asked you to sign over your copyrights to them under the explicit promise that they would protect the copyrights"
"that you also donated money to, as a group, for decades"

"what did you expect LOOLZZZ, U SHUD DO SOMETHING, NOT THEM!"

>>106347190
Talk to these people instead.
https://sfconservancy.org

>>106347182
>and the FSF has been infiltrated and is useless now.
The FSF is a 501c3 organization (IIRC).
Defunct charitable organizations can be stripped of their assets and said assets transferred to a non-defunct charitable organization with similar goals.

Donations can be clawed back aswell.

Did you know that?
oh, you'll now claim
1) "you're not a lawyer"
2) "you've been disbarred"
3) "you're a schizo"

The only "schizo" thing is believing any white faggots would ever fight for anything they "believe" or ever use the legal system for anything. While everyone else does so and runs circles around them.

>>106347231
I have, many times, they don't do shit either and are not run by a lawyer (last time I talked to them).
They tell people /NOT/ to sue, and instead try to beg for settlements.

The guy that runs that lifted 10's of 1000s of dollars out of the FSF for useless work.

>>106347231
Notice the bad "do nothing" advice keeps coming.
The "sfconservancy" guy advises "clients" to sit on their rights for years. So that a claim of laches can be attached to the stack of pre-trial motions one has to respond to.

He gives _great_ advice!
>Note: people here will believe that that guy is a lawyer (when he's not, and never claims to be)
>while screaming that I am not (when I am a licensed attorney, for whatever that is worth)

>BUUT LACHES DOESNT MATTER IN COPYRIGHT!!!11
It's common law. Ofcourse it matters.
Copyright suits are so few and far-between that each one is almost like a case of first impression. You sitting on your rights for... 20? 30? years, might be abit different from some musician doing so for 5.

>>106347237
>oh, you'll now claim
Why should i? Why would i have anything against fixing this mess?
You attack people that are on your own side because, unlike you, they don't run like a little manchild after their now old daddy and cry that chad from school is still bullying them.
You let the FSF get to this point. And now you say others don't want to fix it or replace it?

>>106346816
>FSF would enforce the copyrights
this is pointless and impossible mission and no FSF contract ever suggest that
you either try to mislead or you have reading/iq problems

All these organizations exist so that you will not
1) Register your own copyrights using the expedited process at the earliest possible time
2) Will not use your benifical ownership (even if you transfered your copyright) to start a suit against violators, and will not have actual ownership of your copyright (because you transferred it to the FSF, caldera, etc)

They exist to STOP lawsuits in the Free Software and Opensource worlds.
Don't you people get it?

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

IF RMS was princapaeled he would not have injected himself with proprietary code.
and he would NOT have demanded YOU inject yourself with proprietary code and violate YHWH's actual ENFORCED __COPYRIGHT__ AND __(eternal)_PATENT__ on _HIS_ code. Which is your dna, and various RNA helper applications (some of these helper applications can allow cross breeding between different species, but they won't tell you that).
He wouldn't have cancer from that either. (any cell with changed DNA or RNA detected is killed by the hunter killer T-Cells and macrophages if it can be detected in time, and if it isn't overwhelming their number)

IF RMS was princapaeled he would have married a child bride, as he always wanted.

Instead he has said his life has been horrible.
That is because he failed to live up to his princapaels.
He wasn't able to do it.
And he doesn't have actual pro-GPL lawyers around him.
He has feminist women.

>>106347326
>this is pointless and impossible mission and no FSF contract ever suggest that

The FSF stated explicitly that the reason they ask for you to transfer your copyrights over is so that they may enforce the copyrights in court.

I remeber this clearly from when I joined free software and opensource in 2001.
YOU are now changing "reality" by "rewrighting" the past as the pro-trans anti-child bride christian FAGGOT that you are.

The real reason they wanted the copyrights transferred is because a copyright holder can rescind any license from any free taker at his pleasure, however. But that is not what they stated.

It was fraud in the inducement.

>>106347140
>Why isn't RMS/FSF doing something about this?
First the schizo would have to point to an actual infringement of GPLv2 and then it would only be tested in court against an actual case.

>>106347284
Look dipshit christian
1) programmers all donated to the FSF etc
both their MONEY
and their code
AND their Copyrights.

You now claim "you didn't do enough"
We did all we could.
and more:
We did what they asked.

They have decided, consistently, year after year, decade after decade
To simply pocket the money
and transfer it to random women.

>>106347357
>transfer your copyrights over
>when I joined free software and opensource
>pro-trans anti-child bride
this troll is kinda shit

>>106346638 (OP)
>We built. They take.
>We do not get back.
Pretty sure GPLv3 does not stipulate that I have to give you back derived source code unless i convey it to you, and only you are entitled to the source. "Convey" being a very loose term which is why AGPLv3 came along to fix SaaS loopholes.

I'm not going to read through this nonce shit but Grsecurity is only liable to give their code back to people who they distribute their binaries to (ie: paying customers). No one else is entitled to it BY THEM!

>>106347359
>First the schizo would have to point to an actual infringement of GPLv2 and then it would only be tested in court against an actual case.

Grsecurity's
"You shall not redistribute this derivative work to non-customers"
codicil
conflicts with GPLv2's
"Derivative works authors shall not add restrictions not imposed within this text, upon down-the-line licensees" .

"You shall not redistribute this derivative work to non-customers"
is not a restriction present in the text of the GPLv2.

An actual case would be FSF v Opensource Security over the GCC plugins,
or Bruce Perens, joined by Linus Torvalds, joined by Alan Cox, joined by Enrique Wegelt, joined by .... v Open Source Security over the linux patch.
Or FSF, joined by Bruce Perens, Joined by Alan Cox, joined by Enrique Wegelt, joined by Edward Shishkin.... v Opensource Security over the GCC plugins And the Linux patch combined.

>>106347399
1) Linus stated on camera that he wanted all code to come back to him. The GPL is not a fully integrated document. He can add that condition since he is the original author of the Work, and he did so. The court can be shown that.

2) The GPL says you cannot restrict customers beyond what is in it's text, you cannot also add additional terms between you and the customer
2a) Grsecurity adds an additional term that stops a customer from redistributing it to non-customers
2b) Grsecurity is not an original work: it is a non-seperable derivative, it cannot add additional terms since, according the the US copyright office: the ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT OWNER _CONTROLS ALL DERIVATIVE WORKS_

Thus Linus and other copyright owners from which grsecurity is derived can
1) Add more conditions to their copyright license
2) Control derivative works completely and utterly.
3) disallow derivative works from doing what THEY THEMSELVES do.

Here, through the memorandum of the GPL: they do just that.
While Linus adds a "all code must come back to me" addition, being the ORIGINAL (and present) copyright owner of the WORK.
Grsecurity is BARRED from adding anything more to the terms.

Yet it has done so.


Same goes for the GCC plugins

>>106347384
I did join free software in 2001. ALL my code and media and music and maps and 3d models have been put under the GPL.

I am going to kill you for dishonouring me.
You fuck up all of my threads with derailment.
I vow to kill you like Hans Reiser killed Nina Reiser.

>>106347367
>You now claim "you didn't do enough"
You didn't. Absolutely did not do enough.
When somebody breaks their end of the bargain, in this case the FSF, you know what you do? You fight them until they do their job or until you get back what you gave them.
Even a small group of programmers that trusted the FSF could have absolutely either got onto the board and make them do their job, its a non-profit after all, or sue them for this fraudulent behavior. So why does it still exist to this day in this state?

But instead all you can repeat like a parrot is:
>b-b-but i gave them my rights away, that's all i have to do right?
and pretend like keeping the organization, you are more or less part of or are a beneficiary of, in check.

Absolutely, subservient, paypig cattle behavior.
You will NEVER achieve anything this way.
You are a cuck. And you took every dump they have you and ate it up, and now project your idiocy onto other people that think that what you did was retarded.

Your heart is in the right place but fuck are you stupid.

This thread is either unironically a cuckservatives shizo meltdown or you are a master at baiting.

>>106347460
>, in check.
-is not your responsibility

>>106347441
>Thus Linus and other copyright owners from which grsecurity is derived can
>1) Add more conditions to their copyright license
But the GPL says that a licensee can't add restrictions.

>>106347334
mikeeeeee why don't u chat with meeeeee??????

GPLv2:
> 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

>6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.


Grsecurity Codicil:
>Redistribution
>Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that
>redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit
>obligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of access
>to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs
>

>------------------------


________________You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.___________________ (GPL)
vs
Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs
__________________outside of the explicit__________________obligations under the GPL to User's customers (Codicil)


>-------------------------

As you can see:
The "rights" are changed from: You can redistribute to non-customers at will, (GPL
To
You must not redistribute to non-customers at will (Codicil)


That is a violation of article 2, section 6 of the GPLv2, and the similar section of GPLv3, on works licensed under that.

>>106347460
I never transfered my copyrights over to the FSF, nor did I ever add a "or later versions" clause to my copyright memorandum.

Which is why GPCSlots2 is not hosted on gnu-savanna.

>>106347441
>1) Linus stated on camera that he wanted all code to come back to him.
Not legally binding
>He can add that condition since he is the original author of the Work, and he did so.
He did not. The kernel uses GPLv2 and the only exceptions can be found in LICENSES/exception, neither of which change that language besides basically saying using syscalls is not derived work.

>2a) Grsecurity adds an additional term that stops a customer from redistributing it to non-customers
This is the only fault of Grsecurity and where they have a case.

>While Linus adds a "all code must come back to me" addition, being the ORIGINAL (and present) copyright owner of the WORK.
Once again, he did not.

>>106347457
>I am going to kill you
mikeeeee nooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>106347478
>But the GPL says that a licensee can't add restrictions.
Linus is the original copyright holder of Linux: under US copyright law he can add whatever he wants.

He and other original copyright owners of linux can also completely control Derivative works, according to the US Copyright office.

Grsecurity CANNOT add additional terms or restrictions BECAUSE it is a _NON_SEPERABLE_ Derivative work of LINUS's Work.

That's the distinction between Original Works, and Derivatives.

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

For instance: I can add "no feminists allowed" 'clause' to GPC-Slots2, if I wish, I could also add "or any later version" clause to GPC-Slots2, if I wish. Because GPC-Slots2 is an original work of mine.

I cannot add any clauses to Quake, or whatever you want to call it (false names like "darkplaces" "nexuiz" "xonotic"), because I am NOT the original copyright owner of Quake. So it stays GPLv2 with templar and celtic crosses all over it. (And many more to come YHWH willing)

>>106347513
>ignores the general message and pointing out of illogic because of one thing
Ah! So you are just severely stupid and cannot understand other peoples points.
That's fine. Im sure that RMS, who is apparently your handler, can babysit you for a while longer so you don't have to worry about anything. Might stop posting and draw cute pictures with crayons too. Im sure he would love them!

>>106347501
>Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that
>redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit
>obligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of access
>to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs
I think this is allowed, they're not required to serve you gpl source unless they served you a gpl binary.

>>106347518
>Not legally binding
Yes it is.
1) it is known by all who program derivative works
2) was published openly.
>Once again, he did not.
Yes he did.
The GPL is a 1 page document. It is not fully integrated.
The common usage and development cycle of Linux can be brought in.,
Linus' EXPLICIT __DEMAND__ (and it was a demand) on video and in text, again and again (in the early years), that ALL CODE come back to him can be brought in.

It's all documented, in both video and text.
It is binding.

Linux is his. Not yours.
Grsecurity has no independent right to edit, or distribute derivative works based on Linux.
Linus has the right to control derivative works.
He stated he wants all changes submitted to him.
It is binding.

He can rescind the license at his will.

>>106347556
>Linus is the original copyright holder of Linux
He is a licensee of almost all the code.
He has to publish it under GPLv2 to comply with everyone else's GPL licence.

>>106347595
>I think this is allowed, they're not required to serve you gpl source unless they served you a gpl binary.

Wrong.
They are NOT allowed to disallow their customers from redistributing the derivative work.
Yet they do.

So you are _WRONG_
no matter what you think.

Unless Grsecurity finds an "out" under FAIR USE.
Which is entirely possible, _IF_ linus never accepted NSA Linux, which serves a similar field of business.
If Linus had rejected NSA linux, long ago, (SELinux), then the following could happen:

1) Grsecurity could cite the newer Oracle vs Google case.
1a) Noting that Linux did not enter the buisness endeavor of computer security, in the kernel
1b) Grsecurity filled this neglected space that Linux didn't care about
1c) Just as Google entered the cellphone space that Sun didn't care about
1d) using ripped off Java code.

And it would win on that. (maybe).
But Linus DID bend the knee to the NSA and added SELinux.
So he can counter that argument.

BTW: Google DID rip off actual functional code from Java, but that was dropped in an earlier part of the case. It wasn't just declaration code.

underage retard

>>106347556
oh it's the quakec schizo attorney or whatever

>>106347635
I read your text I just don't think you made your case, which is not a big deal, its not going to be an active case, even RMS thinks there isn't a chance. Now enough about that, tell me more about the age of consent thing everybody's talking about with this mikee guy, do we got another lolfactory here?

I accept your concession

>>106347628
Not under Jordanian Copyright law.
Under Jordanian Copyright law, being the original Author: he has rights over all derivatives.

Now under US law: he still owns the original structure and organization of the code.
Which ALL OTHER code is derived from.
So you're wrong.

They have to comply with his "all code comes back to me" codicil.
Since their code is derived from the structure and organization of the program.
You can look up some cases on westlaw and lexis nexis if you do not believe in "structure and organization" of the program being a copyrightable thing.

Grsecurity, however, not being the original work, cannot add it's own codicils,
yet it has.

Same goes for GCC: RMS owned the structure and organization of the program, no matter how much it is "rewritten" and churned. Same goes for the old hackers in 1993 that linus begged to write linux: they still own that no matter if "100pct of hacker code pre 2000 is removed HAHAHAHHAHA" that is bragged about now "LOL what wallpapers can we fit in the 100kb we saved from deleting ReiserFS, FUCK FASHIST WHITE MAALLLLEEE HACKERS, VIVA WIMENS RIGHTS, VIVIA TRANS!"

It's a violation.
Being the beneficial owners of the transferred copyrights RMS can still start a suit against Grsecurity without the FSF's involvement.
He could also sue the FSF in state court under breach of contract grounds (according to the second circuit) since they refuse to enforce the copyrights themselves. Same with everyone who transferred their copyrights over to the FSF.

>>106347683
>>106347684
I'm going to kill you then.
Because you think I haven't made my case.
You won't be thinking anything.

You believe that Grsecurity can add a "no redistribution" clause.
The GPL forbids this.

It is very simple.
So I am going to kill you:
because you try to stop lawsuits against Grsecurity in every thread.
And try to falsly tell programmers that they have no rights against
violators such as Grsecurity.

I will kill you.
I will resort to violence.

>>106347597
>Yes it is.
No it's not. It is not stated in the official LICENSES provided by the kernel.
>Yes he did.
See above
The rest of your post is irrelevant. What Linus said during a conference != what Linus actually did.

>>106347690
yeah yeah nobody's interested in all that, they're too busy making bank and wierd allegations about this "mikee" guy, I've been reading some fem wiki and apparently he's quite the character in their opinion.

>>106347683
>>106347684
NOTICE that this person presents NO arguments:
He simply states "your wrong, you didn't convince me".

Does ANYONE FUCKING NOTICE THIS?
DOES __ANYONE__

It's a tactic.

>>106347716
>I will kill you.
this has to be the actual mikee, it is isn't it?

>>106347690
The millions of lines of code written by Intel, AMD, and Red Hat are licensed under the GPL.
He is required to follow their license.

>>106347717
Yes it is.
1) It is openly published.
2) The GPL is not a completely integrated document
3) It was a long standing requirement of Linus, heard by all.
4) You have no independent right to use Linux: you didn't pay anything for it, your license can be rescined at any time for any reason by linus and the original copyright owners.

>344 F.3d 446, 451
>("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent consideration."). Where consideration is present, however, the license is irrevocable, and "[t]his is so because a nonexclusive license supported by consideration is a contract. Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2003).

>>106347716
>You believe that Grsecurity can add a "no redistribution" clause.
do i?
>presents NO arguments
did i?

>>106347759
also i think you somebody else than me.
Man this thread is a shizo mess.

>>106347735
Wrong. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/COPYING
It is not stated anywhere in the official COPYING, nor LICENSES provided.

The Linux Kernel is provided under:

SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note

Being under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only,
according with:

LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0

With an explicit syscall exception, as stated at:

LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note

In addition, other licenses may also apply. Please see:

Documentation/process/license-rules.rst


https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
>The Linux Kernel is provided under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only (GPL-2.0), as provided in LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0, with an explicit syscall exception described in LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note, as described in the COPYING file.

There is no "all code comes back to me" exception. It does not exist. You are a schizo that is having a breakdown.

The only thing Grsecurit is at fault of is changing the terms of redistribution of GPLv3.

I'm done talking to you since you are a schizo that is ignoring ACTUAL REALITY.

>>106347735
I just think that you're probably too big a whackjob to be taken seriously with this computer stuff.

Seek help. I suggest lots of sunlight and walking on grass, barefoot if possible. Fresh air, clean/healthy food. If you can afford a vacation I suggest you take one.

>>106346638 (OP)
So is there anything more to this than
>reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee grsecurity reeeeeeeeeeee

>>106347731
They are required to follow his terms: those millions of lines of code are _NON_SEPERABLE_ DERIVATIVE WORKS of the Hacker Version of Linux from 1993-2003.

Those terms include that ALL code return to Linus.
Linus and the Hackers that he purposefully availed himself of to write Linux own the organization and structure of Linux.
Their understanding was that ALL code must return.
It was written, it was recorded, it was stated; and it is known.

Additionally: in the text of the non-integrated 1 page GPLv2 memorandum is stated:

>6. ..... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

There does not exist a clause in the GPLv2 memorandum restricting the distribution of the Work to "non-customers": infact it was stated again and again by the progenitor of the GPL that the wide distribution of free software WAS THE PURPOSE of the GPL, written in the pre-internet age. A court would understand this.

Grsecurity, another NON_SEPERABLE DERIVATIVE WORK of both the organization and structure and the code itself, of Linux adds this codicil:

>Redistribution
>Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that
>redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit
>obligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of access
>to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs
>

Which is effective in stopping all redistribution of the derivative work.
At cross-purposes to Linus' intent, the GPL's original intent as then-contemporanously recided by it's originator: RMS (not withstanding any back-takes and refraimings that may have taken place since, long after the dact),
also in direct line-of-sight red-line violation of the previous clause in the GPL memorandum itself.

>>106346955
>christians, feminists, and trans-faggots
The evil trifecta (with the implied fourth vertex of the tetahedron representing kikery)!

>>106347802
can you walk me through Grsecurity's counter argument here?

>>106347770
>I'm done talking to you since you are a schizo that is ignoring ACTUAL REALITY.

The actual reality is that Linus Torvalds stated on camera that he wanted all changes to the linux source code to be returned to him. He also stated this in wrighting aswell on the LKML.

These are recorded documents. And are reality.
He has the right to make those demands; being the owner of the organization and structure of the Linux kernel; and the original author and copyright owner.
The course-of-doing-buisness vis a vis Linux can be take into account: since the GPL is not a 4 corners completely integrated document; and that course-of-buisness is that changes to Linux are openly published and that anyone can take them.

That's how it's worked for 20, 30 years. A court can take note of this too.

Grsecurity violates that.
It also violates the actual text of the GPL.

>The only thing Grsecurit is at fault of is changing the terms of redistribution of GPLv3.
You say that as if it's "nothing" and cannot support a copyright lawsuit.
And it's GPLv2 in the case of Linux, GPLv3 would be GCC.

>I'm done talking to you since you are a schizo that is ignoring ACTUAL REALITY.
Good, you add nothing to the conversation and just try to derail the thread and tell programmers they have no rights and "should have donated more to the FSF if they wanted something done, lol u gave them your copyrights and can do nothing now lol"

When the opposite is the case.
As beneficial owners they can bring suit themselves.
even if they transferred their copyrights to the FSF

Grsecurity will then file a pre-trial motion claiming the plaintiffs are NOT benificial owners because
1) they are not receiving royalties via the FSF
2) they did not ask for royalties.
The plantiffs will then have to respond noting that
1) they are still benifical owners notwithstanding monetary compensation
2) the compensation they sought was in-kind compensation
(ie: code - for - code)
2a) FSF was expected to enforce the C

>>106347190
Get your secretary to write your posts next time then, damn.

>>106347843
>can you walk me through Grsecurity's counter argument here?

Grsecurity appeals to the Christian morals of white people that
1) women shouldn't recieve death threats
because
1a) Jesus said to not stone the woman for adultery.

As we know, all these women who invaded FreeSoftware and Opensource at the behest of the US Government and it's many subsidiaries, as part of the DSA's "Total information awareness" and "full sprectrum dominance" programmes, are recruited from universities: and none are virgins.

Save the cripple young lady;
whom I had no problem with. (IIRC)
(they wheeled her around :( as a mascot )

>>106347872
>He has the right to make those demands
If Linus said he wanted changes to be returned to him, thats his choice, as is my desire for a pony.

If he sent that demand to the LKML I'd love to read the replies, can you provide a link or some quoted text to search on?

>>106347359
I already know about that bit though. They post updates on a paid channel and cut off access to future updates if you release the source code they provide.
It's actually quite bad, but OP writes horribly so everyone brushes him off.

>>106347897
>Get your secretary to write your posts next time then, damn.

I don't have one.
No money.

Why get "money" when it can't buy you what money was originally invented for: purchasing child brides and appropriating grain to the army.

Is it even money then?
(if a wheel cannot roll, is it a wheel?)

Archer175, can you explain this comment you left on the IA on the GamersNexus reupload?

>>106347921
>I don't have one.
In that case your lawyer excuse goes completely ou the window, not that it really made sense in the first place.
Get better at writing and people will listen to your ideas. It really is that simple.

>>106347920
>I already know about that bit though. They post updates on a paid channel and cut off access to future updates if you release the source code they provide.
>It's actually quite bad, but OP writes horribly so everyone brushes him off.
You have full permission to fix my prose and repost it anywhere, provided it retains the "Grsecurity is violating the Linux and GCC copyrights and here's why", idea.

I'm a programmer, and a lawyer.
I think in a certain way.
And this place is stream-of-consciousness
(since people report and delete threads before I can respond if I try to edit and format my response)

>You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Linus is required to distribute the entire kernel under the GPL because it contains GPL code.

>>106347902
gotcha, so facts on the ground then?

>>106347928
I'm not Archer175; however he is historically correct. The same goes for censors. Historically the only hard-counter is killing them.

We tried Tor, Freenet, etc. While they technically work: they haven't succeeded in countering censorship. They've just divided hackers from eachother furthur into quite irrelevance.

>>106347929
>In that case your lawyer excuse goes completely ou the window, not that it really made sense in the first place.
Why so.
I do not have a secratary.
Thus I am "not a lawyer"?

The Bar says differently
<------------------
(and no I will not reupload a newer one, so you can hope that I fail to censor it properly and you can "disbar me for being infavor of marrying young girls as YHWH's law portends")

>>106347942
so are there multiple people discussing this from the violation point of view? one a lawyer, one a death threat making nutcase? do you know each other?

>>106347982
I don't know either. I feel like i switched conversations to another person halfway through and got mistakenly quoted by the first one i think.

Its better to just leave this thread be. There is no use.

>>106347942
>You have full permission to fix my prose and repost it anywhere, provided it retains the "Grsecurity is violating the Linux and GCC copyrights and here's why", idea.
I'm not going to repost your posts for you, but the basic idea I probably will repeat in future discussions.
>I'm a programmer, and a lawyer.
>I think in a certain way.
Everyone thinks in a certain way, and no one cares that everyone else does. It's the job of the person who wishes to be heard to make their thoughts easy to understand. Learning to write means learning to translate your thoughts into text that can be parsed effectively.
>And this place is stream-of-consciousness
>(since people report and delete threads before I can respond if I try to edit and format my response)
Get better at writing and it won't take you the lifetime of a thread to get a thought out.
Also, if you write better, other people will be more willing to talk with you, and the thread will stay bumped because you've expressed an idea properly.
>>106347975
>Thus I am "not a lawyer"?
No, that isn't what I meant.
What I mean is you don't have a secretary, so it's time you learn to write for yourself.
And one other thing, you seem to have a weird amount of your identity tied up in "being a lawyer" or "being a programmer". It's just appeal to authority, and not a very good authority because no one knows who you are and no one cares.
I'm trying to help you with your rhetoric here. Since you're a lawyer your rhetoric should already be good, but it's not, it's terrible. Have you been through some kind of bad mental health period?

>>106347955
Yes

>>106347944
Linux, being the original copyright holder, was able to add whatever codicil he wanted.
He, and the Hackers right next to him (he's gotten rid of them all since), added "all code must come back to me" codicil.

They still own the organization and structure of the program, even though they've been banned from the (back then not existing) "governing organization" for failure to folllow the (laterally imposed) speech codes.

Grsecurity, being a completely derived work, having no relation to Linus or the Hackers that wrote Linux; and being antagonistic towards them: does not have a right to add such a codicil.

>>106348005
>Everyone thinks in a certain way, and no one cares that everyone else does. It's the job of the person who wishes to be heard to make their thoughts easy to understand. Learning to write means learning to translate your thoughts into text that can be parsed effectively.

The thread would be deleted before I could.
I've tried that before.
The feminist faggots on here report my thread and it's deleted.

I have to get my thoughts down as fast as possible to counter that at all.
They have a rule that I am not "allowed" to be "platformed" anywhere on the net. They enforce it as best they can.

They've also written university papers complaining
"sexism in opensource software", 20 years ago.

>>106348006
>add whatever codicil he wanted.
But the current version of Linux must be licensed under GPLv2, or his license to Intel's code would automatically terminate.

>>106348030
You seem to be beyond reasoning with, and you've settled into a predecided way of thinking. Grsecurity has been doing this stuff for years, so you have time to improve.
I'll just say this again: No one cares that you "think in a certain way", and it is your job to package that by learning to communicate the content of your thoughts in a way they can understand. If you don't, they won't listen to you.
If you are incapable of doing this, you are incapable of making your ideas heard. Improve or give up.

>>106346679
Do they also distribute a copy of GCC with support for these plugins? If they are not forking GCC then this is functionality that's already part of GCC so there's nothing to answer to.

Note: I am not a lawyer. This is just my understanding of things as far as the GPL-2 goes. The Tivoisation trap is real. GPL3 closed these loopholes off but the Linux kernel is still stuck on GPL2 and by Linus's own words always will be. He hates the GPL3.

>>106347480
>>>106347334
> mikeeeeee why don't u chat with meeeeee??????

Where do you want to chat?
I used to use IRC (still do from time to time).

I usually don't chat because I'm banned from everywhere. I respond to you on the archives when I can find them. You can also post to the sourceforge project's Forum anonomyously, but if you log in it is less likely to be spam filtered by them.

You can also email me at:
chaos_squeteam@yahoo.com
********************@gmail.com
mikeeusa@yahoo.com (I can't log into this anymore for some reason, wants a phone number)
mikeeusa@anyofthecockliaddresses

the _ is an e.
Or you can add a comment on my old or new youtube pages.
gregorysmith (fk systemd) (cant log into this one
or chaos_squeteam (new youtube page)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdfzSopfLbTV68wQ_Tjnz2w

for however long that will last.

>>106348071
>Note: I am not a lawyer
Hello newfag, don't answer to mikeeusa posts ever again, he's a confirmed schizo and basically it's like speaking with a broken record that loops over and over again.

>>106348121
I gathered that. Even if there were somehow a violation here (and I'm not convinced there is) then they could just switch to LLVM/Clang (which can compile Linux now) and they'd be compliant again. I don't think going after them via GCC will reach a satisfactory outcome. Yes, their behaviour is shitty but it's within the terms of the Linux license to do what they're doing.

>>106348071
>Do they also distribute a copy of GCC with support for these plugins? If they are not forking GCC then this is functionality that's already part of GCC so there's nothing to answer to.
GCC was intentionally written in such a way that all "plugins" are non-seperable derivative works and thus subject to the copyright provisions of whatever License GCC is under (which happens to be the GPL)
>Note: I am not a lawyer. This is just my understanding of things as far as the GPL-2 goes. The Tivoisation trap is real. GPL3 closed these loopholes off but the Linux kernel is still stuck on GPL2 and by Linus's own words always will be. He hates the GPL3.

That's all bullshit really.
The GPL doesn't control US copyright.
US copyright is somewhat simple:

1) you as the copyright holder have various rights
2) after the 1973 (or so) copyright changes you can chop up these rights as you wish

One of these various rights is the creation of
1) Annotations
2) Derivative works

You can forbid ANY annotations regarding your work.
Which a plugin would be.
It is also a derivative work since it completely relies on the code of GCC to exist at all.

Here's a case:
The Real Player case. 9th circuit IIRC

Some Other Guy made an OverLay that went OVER realplayer.
It's a _seperate_ program. Has nothing in common with RealPlayer.

The Court adjudicated it as an infringing derivative work.

Now: what do you think these GCC plugins are under the jurisprudence of the RealPlayer case?
How about the linux "patches".

Think about it.
https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

>>106348139
There is a violation.
Why do you people keep claiming there isn't?

Grsecurity does NOT have the right to make derivative works OUTSIDE of the permission GCC and Linux give it:

That permission EXCLUDES __ANY___ additional restrictions not within the memorandum text of the GPL document.

Grsecurity ADDS a "no redistribution to non-clients" restriction AND enforces it through monetary penalty (keeping your forward-paid monies) AND has been effective all these years (it's never leaked)

>>106346638 (OP)
Does LibreOffice not have a justify option?
Lmao

>>106348121
>>106348139
Same fag
"do not listen to the man behind the curtain"

You can't counter my arguments so you call me a schizo. Then you just ASSERT that you THINK there is no violation.

The only counter to this I have is
1) to re-explain why GRSecurity is violating copyright law
or
2) Kill you.

Since you will NOT argue in good faith
(you just name call and assert that GRsecurity is in the right!)

That only gives the choice of killing you for libel.

>>106346734
>Comparing a pedophilic fattie to the greatest statesman of the 19th century

>As a copyright owner in the U.S., your fundamental rights include the exclusive ability to reproduce the work, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform the work publicly, and display the work publicly. Copyright protection for original works of authorship exists automatically once the work is fixed in a tangible medium. Registering your work with the U.S. Copyright Office, while voluntary, provides added benefits, such as the ability to sue for infringement in federal court and establishes a public record of your ownership.
>Your Exclusive Rights as a Copyright Owner
>The U.S. Copyright Act grants you, as the copyright owner, a bundle of exclusive rights:
>
> Reproduction:
> .
>
>The right to make copies or phonorecords of your work.
>Derivative Works:
>.
>The right to create new works based on the original, such as a movie based on a book.
>Distribution:
>.
>The right to distribute copies of your work to the public by sale, rental, lending, or other means.
>Public Performance:
>.
>The right to perform literary, musical, dramatic, or choreographic works, as well as audiovisual works, publicly.
>Public Display:
>.
>
> The right to display literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, or pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works publicly.
>
>What Copyright Protects
>Copyright protects original works of authorship that have been fixed in a tangible medium. This includes a wide range of creative works, such as:
>
> Literary works (books, articles, software)
> Musical works and sound recordings
> Dramatic works and choreographic works
> Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
> Motion pictures and other audiovisual works
>
>Copyright Does Not Protect
>Copyright does not protect:
>
> Facts
> Ideas
> Systems
> Methods of operation
> Titles, names, or short phrases
>

>>106348082
how about right here? its my understanding that grsecurity cannot prevent you from distributing their derivative works, but its also my understanding that they don't have to deliver these derivative works to you personally. is there anything I'm missing?

>>106348144
>>106348174
>>106348194
Are they writing a plugin using existing GCC functionality or are they modifying GCC to enable new functionality. That's the key question a court would ask.

If they are modifying GCC then that means they are subject to its license. If they are simply using existing plugin functionality that's already found in the compiler then that's not a violation.

Anyway, this whole argument is stupid. They can just change to LLVM/Clang and be completely compliant. In fact, I don't think they distribute binaries anyway, only patches, so this complaince issue is actually an issue for the end user that chooses to compile it with GCC instead of Clang.

>>106348210
YHWH, the creator of THIS world, was pro-pedo pro-loli
<----------------Read

Just as the creator of our free C compiler.
Make your own dirt christ-fuck.

Nerd thread or schizo thread?

Man WHAT the FUCK is this thead??
This is NOT GOOD.

>>106348139
>but it's within the terms of the Linux license
No one knows if it is until a judge rules on it.

>>106348237
Both.

>>106348275
Yes, that is generally the way copyright violations go but it is assumed legal unless somebody challenges it. Certainly, the Linux maintainers don't think it's an issue.

>>106348220
>how about right here? its my understanding that grsecurity cannot prevent you from distributing their derivative works, but its also my understanding that they don't have to deliver these derivative works to you personally. is there anything I'm missing?

1)The GPLv2 states that GRsecurity may not add restrictions not found within the text of the GPLv2
Do you understand this?

2)The GPLv2 does not restrict users from distributing to non-customers
Do you understand this? y/n?

3)In Law, a restriction is a Penalty exacted upon those who violate the restriction
Do you understand this? y/n

4)The GPL is NOT trying to protect it's OWN TEXT from change: it applys to the copyrighted WORK
Do you understand this? y/n

5) The GPL applies to the behavior, regarding the copyrighted work, between the person creating a work based on the copyrighted work, and the people that person is distributing that new derivative work to
Do you understand this? y/n

6) Grsecurity is a derivative work.
Do you understand this? y/n

7) Grsecurity adds a term between it and the other people that they are not to distribute Grsecurity to non-customers
Do you understand this? y/n

8) This term is not existant within the text of the GPLv2
Do you understand this? y/n

9) This term IS existant under the terms supplied with Grsecurity
Do you understand this? y/n

10) Grsecurity enforces this term by imposing a penalty
Do you understand this? y/n

11) A penalty is the way by which the Law imposes a Restriction.
Do you understand this? y/n

12) It has been successful: Grsecurity has never leaked.

>>106348306
>12) It has been successful: Grsecurity has never leaked.
That's not entirely true. Various patches have made their way into things like linux-hardened and GRsecurity cannot stop this because their additional term is more akin to a terms of service agreement. They cannot stop you from fulfilling your obligations under the GPLv2 but they can terminate your account with them and refuse to do business with you.

>>106348306
>not to distribute Grsecurity to non-customers
So if you distribute it to your customer then they can distribute it to whoever they want?

>>106348396
Yes. I don't think they quite understand that but Grsecurity cannot take this right away from you.
What they can do is decide they never want to do business with you again because you decided to distribute it against their wishes even if that was the correct and legal thing to do.

>>106348306

>11) A penalty is the way by which the Law imposes a Restriction.
>Do you understand this? y/n

no, I'm not sure on this one

>12) It has been successful: Grsecurity has never leaked.
I can see what they're doing, what I don't get is your gripe. You can absolutely simply disqualify me from the jury for being low IQ but thats probably the only legal argument that is solid, I don't think I'm very high IQ but at the same time, I don't think I need to be in this case, like I said, it sounds like GRsecurity provides sources to the folks who are doing business with them, ie., receiving binaries (the event triggering their obligations to provide sources). It sounds to me like maybe you just got banned from their download page.

Now you can attempt to form a legal argument, but if it supercedes a much simpler argument (mine), it needs to invalidate the argument it supercedes in my opinion, but then again you're the lawyer not me lol, personally I think your on a silly expedition and wasting your and others time. Not wasting my time, I like shitposting, but I mean serious people, and it sounds like the reply I read from RMS was a pretty good assessment of the chances of prevailing and honestly should have been the end of it but here you are. So whats your motive here?

(I tried to answer all but 4chan says its too long, but essentially you lost me with your argument chain in a few places)

>>106346638 (OP)
>writes to free software heroes using GMAIL
retard

>>106348416
this looks like the correct take. I'm betting neither the binaries nor the sources are distributed publically but instead as a part of a business relationship.

>>106346638 (OP)
posting in ebin schizo bread

>>106348082
Get Briar or SimpleX.

>>106348071
>Linux kernel is still stuck on GPL2 and by Linus's own words always will be. He hates the GPL3.
>linus is a sellout bitch
yes we know

>>106348071
>noooooo you can't use my code on whatever hardware you want because... you just can't oK? that's akshually MORE freedom
Linus is incredibly based for not taking up the FSF t-cock.

>>106348082
Do you sometimes comment on microsoft devblogs?