Dear Bruce Perens,
Please. Please sue Open Source Security.
Before it's too late.

Dear RMS;
Open Source Security has defeated you.

Dear RMS, metux: In response to censorship and banning, as mentioned in (
>[dev] Kernel maintainer *CENSORED* on LKML [WAS: linux: Goodbye from a Linux community volunteer]
>https://lists.suckless.org/dev/2410/35774.html )

For what it's worth, I'm banned from the LKML too.
Linus is your enemy. Your only real option is to physically fight him
or his lieutenants in real life.
Same with the others.

Remember: he availed himself of the public for decades:
Taking free labour from all the hackers.
Now he has turned his back on hackers and infavor of wage-workers and
corporates.
Yet he keeps the code.
Or "rewrites" it and claims it never existed from the hackers.

It might sound bad: but that's the only way things of honour can be resolved.

I can't send this email to the LKML. (not using html, text only) (or any other email):
Linux License of grsecurity should be canceled

Grsecurity has prevented redistribution of it's
derivative work of the Linux(R) kernel successfully.
There have been no leaks of this derivative work.

They have also added a term to their derivative work of the Linux(R)
kernel stating that any redistribution of the derivative work will
incur a penalty: no more derivative work and withholding of paid funds.

To avoid this penalty no one has leaked the proprietary work of
grsecurity which is a derivative work of the Linux Kernel.

OpenSource licenses are now considered a joke, and opensource programmers
who work for free as clowns.

You can cancel the license grsecurity has to the Linux Kernel code.
Any of you whom has contributed to the Linux Kernel own your code: you
can cancle grsecurity's license to your code.

1) grsecurity never paid you anything. (nor did you ask for anything)
They cannot rely on contract law to enforce their license.
2) Grsecurity is required to follow copyright law.
They cannot claim following the terms of the license are "performance" under contract law: they have a duty to not violate Federal Copyright.
3) Grsecurity is violating the copyright license (which they got
for free) of your code. Your permission states that additional restrictive terms
are not permitted to be attached to the corpus of the copyrighted Work.
Grsecurity have added additional restrictive terms: they have
abrogated the "no additional restrictions" term by adding a new term:
no redistribution of the derivative work.
That new term has been successfully enforced by self-help by
grsecurity.

You will laugh and claim that
> "THE GPL ALLOWS PEOPLE TO FORBID REDISTRIBUTION LOL!" and
> "THE GPL IS JUST TALKING ABOUT NOT CHANGING THE TEXT OF THE GPL ITSELF LOL!" > and "ITS A PATCH, SO THEY CAN PUT IT UNDER WHATEVER LICENSE THEY WANT SINCE > THEY DONT INCLUDE LINUX WITH IT"
And ther