Grsecurity did the same thing with their kernel patch. Used to be GPL. Now it's GPL+N(o redistribution).

>But you can't do that if it's not an original work
They did.

RMS completely agrees that you can make a patch of the linux kernel and GCC and distribute it under any license you want.
(See image attached)
It can be completely proprietary if you want.
Ask him about it at rms@gnu.org

RMS will not fight against Grsecurity.
(rms@gnu.org)

>>513522585
He claims they won't do anything because "they can't"

I'm a lawyer. They can certainly sue Grsecurity. With copyright you never know how things are going to go; it's all very case by case.

Yet RMS claims "nooo we couldn't win!"
Doesn't seem genuine for me.

I watched the faces on the appellate judges when Grsec was explaining it could add a codicil to a GPL'd work forbidding redistribution "because it's a buisness agreement". They didn't seem impressed (this was during the Bruce Perens libel appeal). Looked to me like they were like "wtf, bullshit argument" vs Grsec. Though it wasn't decided regarding those issues since this was not a copyright suit.

>>513522585
He claims they won't do anything because "they can't"

I'm a lawyer. They can certainly sue Grsecurity. With copyright you never know how things are going to go; it's all very case by case.

Yet RMS claims "nooo we couldn't win!"
Doesn't seem genuine for me.

I watched the faces on the appellate judges when Grsec was explaining it could add a codicil to a GPL'd work forbidding redistribution "because it's a buisness agreement". They didn't seem impressed (this was during the Bruce Perens libel appeal). Looked to me like they were like "wtf, bullshit argument" vs Grsec. Though it wasn't decided regarding those issues since this was not a copyright suit.