You may have kernel contributors within you organization or association;
there is a fairly good chance their copyright is being violated now by
GRSecurity (Brad Spengler and PaX Team) (Since GRSec code snakes through
nearly the entirety of the Linux Kernel code tree). If said copyright is
not defended, it is not far fetched to imagine that more and more
entities will see that there is no teeth to the license grant and
basically will treat your code as if it were BSD licensed. The "payment"
one gets for working on a work licensed under a CopyLeft license is
labor: the derivative works. If that incentive is known to no longer
exist I imagine less people will contribute.
It will become a "good in theory, does no longer work in practice"
situation and Linux will be in the same state as BSD with less
individuals willing to sacrifice their time to donate code to entities
that will never give back.
I don't think it is a good idea to let this one go.
On 2017-06-15 16:02, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:39 AM, <aconcernedfossdev@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly
violating
the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?
He is also violating the license grant, Courts would not be fooled by
his
scheme to prevent redistribution.
The license grant the Linux Kernel is distributed under disallows the
imposition of additional terms. The making of an understanding that
the
derivative work must not be redistributed (lest there be retaliation)
is the
imposition of an additional term. The communication of this threat is
the
moment that GRSecurity violates the license grant. Thence-forth
modification, making of derivative works, and distribution of such is
a
violation of the Copyright statute. The concoction of the transparent
scheme
shows that it is a willful violation, one taken in full knowledge by
GRSecurity of the intention of the original grantor.
Why does not one person here care?
Just want to forget what holds Libre Software together and go the way
of
BSD?
(Note: last month the GRSecurity Team removed the public testing
patch,
they prevent the distribution of the patch by paying customers by a
threat of no further business: they have concocted a transparent
scheme
to make sure the intention of the Linux rights-holders (thousands of
entities) are defeated) (This is unlike RedHat who do distribute their
patches in the form the rights-holders prefer: source code, RedHat
does
not attempt to stymie the redistribution of their derivative works,
GRSecurity does.).
Okay, I'll bite. Fedora, as a matter of policy, only ships one kernel
variant, the upstream kernel. We have never used the PaX/grsec
patchset as it is fundamentally incompatible with other security
mechanisms we use in Fedora and breaks userspace without concern. So,
the whole matter of what PaX/grsec do is pretty much irrelevant to
Fedora because we never shipped it.
I'm sure there are people who are concerned about this matter, but as
a project, Fedora is not really involved in that mess.
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
