dear Bruce,
On Sun, 02 Jul 2017, Bruce Perens wrote: > This might make a little more sense if you still can't > understand: By operating under their previously-stated policy of > denying further service to clients who exercise their right to > distribute under the GPL license, Open Source Security > Inc. creates an expectation that exercise of the re-distribution > right required under the terms of the GPL will lead to business > damage to the customer. This practice effectively is an added > term to the license, and addition of such a term is prohibited > under language in GPL section 6. This leads to termination of the > GPL license granted to Open Source Security Inc., and thus to > copyright infringement of the Linux Kernel by that entity. In > addition, the GPL is breached as a contract from the copyright > holders of the Linux software to which Open Source Security > Inc. and the customer are both joined. I first thought grsec was not in GPL violation, but then in your last 3 mails and this one you made the point very clear and I'm more than half-way convinced (yet my opinion is of little value here, IANAL nor a scholar in law) Are there other cases in which a license (whatever license) has been breached (and ruled as broken) by such a business arrangement? My "feeling" is that this case breaks the GPL license especially because the client can demonstrate that, by exercising his/her rights granted by the license, a damage is caused by a business arrangement enforced by those who distributed the software under that very license. it is overall an interesting case which may or may not confirm the viability of a new (is it new?) business model in open source. thanks for the forthcoming article post btw, will read it. ciao _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng