>Where a composer assigned a work in exchange for royalties, he could not sue the assignees for infringement: the Second Circuit suggested that the assignee might be liable in a state court action at common law for breach of an implied obligation not to use the musical theme in a way that would deprive the assignor composer of royalties
>Cortner v. Israel, 732 G.2d 267, 271, 222 U.S.P.Q. 756 (2d Cir. 1984)

RMS and the FSF induced programmers to assign over their copyrights under promises that this was so they could enforce said copyrights. RMS and the FSF have never once brought a case to final decision.

>When a composer assigns a copyright title to a publisher in exchange for the payment of royalties, an equitable trust relationship is established between the two parties which gives the composer the right to sure a non-owner for infingement of the copyright. This relationship is known as "benificial ownership." Allowing the composer or author to sue ensures that the benificial owner is able to protect the work from infringement.
>id at 271
>Batiste v. Island Records Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 220, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1107 (5th Cir. 1999)

Programmers assigned over their copyrights to the FSF inorder for the promise, as described to them, of the GPL be fufilled: which was that derivative works be also published openly so that the original authors could benifit from the added labour; exacted upon their work as a derivative work. This is what was explained to them, and all of us.
When we were being fraudulently induced to do labour and create works for Free Software and "Open Source". It was explained in exacting detail:

Labour for Labour.
Code for Code.

FSF and RMS refuse to enforce any of the copyrights at all; and refuse to honour the purpouse of the copyright assignments.

Cool. But what if 1% of them are psychopaths and they just start clocking their employees and execs in public?

Because they just want to copyright everything to own it 3rd party like the riaa and take a cut

jews again?

Hey MikeeUSA, people would take you more seriously if you didn't spam them a dozen times about how you want to fuck children beforehand.
Also, Grsec provides their patch sources to its customers. Their Grsec license just happens to terminate if they publicly share them though. If you want to autistically spam this issue, maybe fuck with the gay retard fennoswede who caused spender to give up the upstreaming of his years of hard work.

>>513499593
.w.what?!

>>513499141
Yep

>>513499697
Search the archives or KF if you want to learn more about MikeeUSA and his quest for a harem of child brides.
Grsec used to be a public patch set for the Linux kernel that greatly cut the attack surface with a bunch of nifty memory hardening feature plus RBAC which is less of a chore to use than SELinux imo. Torvalds kept shitting on it for years and it never got upstreamed so the prinipal author packed his things and started selling it for big bux to corporate customers. If they make use of their right to share the GPL licensed code their license with Grsec gets terminated which some people claim is a violation of the GPL.
But you can just do it and not get sued by Grsec since they don't have a legal angle. They just won't continue doing business with you. It sucks but the histrionic fennoswede is at fault. He thinks kernel security is dumb for some reason.