On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Jaromil <jaro...@dyne.org> wrote:
> 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)
>
It's getting the time sequence right that makes the difference. An
expectation that the business will be damaged by Grsecurity shutting off
their service, in consequence of exercise of their GPL right to
redistribute, exists *before *the act of distribution. It took me a while
to get that right.
It would be much harder to prove if they hadn't warned people and made this
policy known to many people, and if they just incidentally disconnected a
customer after a single act of distribution without the context to show
that it was a known policy of the company.
If this actually got to court, it would be necessary to depose people about
the policy in order to show that customers knew in advance. But I'm pretty
confident that Grsecurity would be found in violation.
>
> Are there other cases in which a license (whatever license) has been
> breached (and ruled as broken) by such a business arrangement?
>
I don't have a precedential case yet. I suspect one could be found.
Thanks
Bruce
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
