Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] ru...@mrbrklyn.com: Please remove me from your hang...@nylxs.com or vill...@mrbrklyn.com mailing lists

[nipponmail]

The existing tools and infrastructure for dealing with that

problem is also appropriate here.

Are you saying that you are going to submit him for criminal prosecution 
under the Can-Spam act?!?!?!? He doesn't make money off of the spam, and 
it isn't from a spoofed address so...



On 2020-02-25 17:21, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:

On 2020-02-24 17:34, J.B. Nicholson wrote:

Alexandre François Garreau wrote:

It was, and it is not “tolerated”, this is bad faith: it is simply
impossible to do anything about that.


gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org list owners could remove ru...@mrbrklyn.com
from the list and make it clear that he won't be allowed back until he
has stopped sending unsolicited email to those who don't want it.


It's not that technically simple.

Firstly, certain e-mail addresses have already been harvested.
The proverbial "horse has left the barn". The culprit can manually
re-subscribe those addresses to his mailing list, without any
connection to this mailing list.

With those addresses, he has similar powers to those who peddle
phishing scams or fake Rolex watches.

The existing tools and infrastructure for dealing with that
problem is also appropriate here. What that means is that the
individual targets of the unsolicited messages have to apply
local countermeasures.

The list cannot possibly help with traffic that doesn't
pass through it.

Secondly, removals from mailing lists and other forms of blocking
can be circumvented. There are ways to obtain new network
identifiers such as e-mail addresses, domains and IP addresses.

I've taken care of the problem locally; I don't see those NYLXS
postings any more.  I've done that without intending to filter
out Ruben himself, I think. I can certainly see his
gnu-misc-discuss postings. No sure about direct mail: that depends
on to what extent it is co-located with the mailing list. If
that's sent from the same host, then, oops! That's what you get
for co-locating your mail identity with your spammy mailing list.


There is something that can be done. Apparently
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org owners have chosen to do nothing about it and
therefore it is fair to say that ru...@mrbrklyn.com's behavior is
tolerated.


With the way the discussion has heated up, the moderators are
already busy just going through the messages.

As a mere participant who doesn't read everything, this already
sucked up so much of my precious little free time this past
weekend that I didn't write a single line of code.

If the moderators start spending their free time tuning
and debugging main infrastructure components in an escalating
battle of countermeasures against unsolicited mail
(all without being able to put a dent in any of it which doesn't
go through the list), the moderation will either fall behind,
so that complainers will start kvetching about their
posts appearing late, or else decline in quality, so that some
blatant kind communication guideline violations will get through.

___
Hangout mailing list
hang...@nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] ru...@mrbrklyn.com: Please remove me from your hang...@nylxs.com or vill...@mrbrklyn.com mailing lists

[nipponmail]

The existing tools and infrastructure for dealing with that

problem is also appropriate here.

Are you saying that you are going to submit him for criminal prosecution 
under the Can-Spam act?!?!?!? He doesn't make money off of the spam, and 
it isn't from a spoofed address so...



On 2020-02-25 17:21, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:

On 2020-02-24 17:34, J.B. Nicholson wrote:

Alexandre François Garreau wrote:

It was, and it is not “tolerated”, this is bad faith: it is simply
impossible to do anything about that.


gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org list owners could remove ru...@mrbrklyn.com
from the list and make it clear that he won't be allowed back until he
has stopped sending unsolicited email to those who don't want it.


It's not that technically simple.

Firstly, certain e-mail addresses have already been harvested.
The proverbial "horse has left the barn". The culprit can manually
re-subscribe those addresses to his mailing list, without any
connection to this mailing list.

With those addresses, he has similar powers to those who peddle
phishing scams or fake Rolex watches.

The existing tools and infrastructure for dealing with that
problem is also appropriate here. What that means is that the
individual targets of the unsolicited messages have to apply
local countermeasures.

The list cannot possibly help with traffic that doesn't
pass through it.

Secondly, removals from mailing lists and other forms of blocking
can be circumvented. There are ways to obtain new network
identifiers such as e-mail addresses, domains and IP addresses.

I've taken care of the problem locally; I don't see those NYLXS
postings any more.  I've done that without intending to filter
out Ruben himself, I think. I can certainly see his
gnu-misc-discuss postings. No sure about direct mail: that depends
on to what extent it is co-located with the mailing list. If
that's sent from the same host, then, oops! That's what you get
for co-locating your mail identity with your spammy mailing list.


There is something that can be done. Apparently
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org owners have chosen to do nothing about it and
therefore it is fair to say that ru...@mrbrklyn.com's behavior is
tolerated.


With the way the discussion has heated up, the moderators are
already busy just going through the messages.

As a mere participant who doesn't read everything, this already
sucked up so much of my precious little free time this past
weekend that I didn't write a single line of code.

If the moderators start spending their free time tuning
and debugging main infrastructure components in an escalating
battle of countermeasures against unsolicited mail
(all without being able to put a dent in any of it which doesn't
go through the list), the moderation will either fall behind,
so that complainers will start kvetching about their
posts appearing late, or else decline in quality, so that some
blatant kind communication guideline violations will get through.

___
Hangout mailing list
hang...@nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Harrassment on this list

[nipponmail]

I would like to be unsubscribed from the "NYLXS" list, and the 
gnu-misc-discuss list if it's being sent there too.


I'm on the list to see what RMS has to say, once in awhile.

I'm not on this list to see a do-nothing guy foment all day and night 
filling up my inbox. Ruben: If you want to sue, sue. You're a Jew, you 
know lots of lawyers. Stop fomenting and keveching and just file your 
suit.



On 2020-02-23 20:46, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

Andreas Enge  skribis:


The reason I have been insisting is that inaction towards this kind of
behaviour kills communication in the GNU project - if victims of 
verbal

abuse are expected to change their opinions to stop the name calling,
or are invited to be less susceptible, they will eventually just 
leave,
and their example will prevent others from joining. And as has been 
amply
demonstrated, just brandishing guidelines without options for 
sanctions

does not solve the problem.


I very much agree, thanks for explaining it this clearly.

Ludo’.
___
Hangout mailing list
hang...@nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Richard Stallman should be reinstated to President of the FSF

[nipponmail]

FSF seems defunct. When was the last time we had a glorious Peoples 
Action, such as the Cisco lawsuit? Forever ago. It's not doing what it's 
supposed to do: which is protect the copyrights it holds (whole reason 
it induces their hand over to begin with)


On 2020-02-22 12:51, Alexandre François Garreau wrote:

rms cannot be simply reinstated into FSF because he left himself
willingly.  For him to go back inside FSF would require initiative from
him, added to efforts of both parts.
___
Hangout mailing list
hang...@nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

[nipponmail]

They got rid of RMS because "the industry" (working white men) don't 
want to see a repeat of the Cisco suit, where RMS was victorious, and 
won big.


The rest of the current FSF are do-nothings and won't sue anyone for 
copyright infringement of the GPL.


On 2020-02-21 16:27, Ruben Safir wrote:

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 09:02:34AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

Hi Dmitry,

Dmitry Gutov  skribis:

> On 20.02.2020 11:47, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> I think it’s important for GNU hackers as a group to be able to reflect
>> on the project’s procedures and discuss whether/how to improve them.
>
> So what GNU hackers who disagree with you lot on this or other
> subjects are supposed to do?

They can choose to ignore the Social Contract, or better yet, they can
let us know they do not endorse it and (ideally) why.  It’s a process.




There is no process.  There is you trying to water down GNU to a
technology clubhouse of a few coders with too much time on there hands.



> I don't see the opposing viewpoints reflected in your documentation
> anywhere. You have formed a subgroup, discussed your views in private,
> and are now soliciting positive feedback within the project, while
> largely ignoring negative one.

This is wrong.  See the timeline at:

  https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback

> And you're misrepresenting yourselves as a project-wide official
> initiative. "We are GNU, and here are our values".

Our first message¹ to maintainers started with:

  The authors of this message have started an effort […]

I don’t think there’s any misrepresentation.



Oh come on, yes you do!  You intentionally created a misrepresentation
when you tried to turn GUIX into GNU, then again when you openly
attacked RMS without cause, and not this attempted take over where you
are openly claiming to represent GNU, as if you have any authority.

Your cohorts have openly expressed that if this works, you won't need
Stallman and GNU leadership, that you will just sidestep it..."it will
become irrelevent"

Clearly here it is your intention to misrepresent it, and misrepresent
GNU.

The process we want to see is the one where you shut down this wiki, 
and

where your social justice warior attempts come to an end.  Also we want
to see you banned.  The only reason your not banned is because Stallman
is protecting you.  Most of the rest of us want to see you banned.

Ruben



Thanks,
Ludo’.

¹ https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/tree/code/sc-email.txt


--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

___
Hangout mailing list
hang...@nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout

Re: Block Ruben Safir - Re: [Hangout - NYLXS]

[nipponmail]

It suddenly stopped for me too, I didn't do anything tho.

On 2020-02-19 06:33, Marcel wrote:

Thank you Orbulon. I have blocked all of the related domains. I have
been very busy while traveling and this incessant spam has been a real
nuisance.

That I have been forced to block the domain names to stop the spam
speaks volumes about the quality of character of this abusive
individual.

On 2/19/20 6:44 AM, orbu...@tutanota.com wrote:
Since the NYLXS mailing list doesn’t seem to respect unsubscribe 
requests, the only fix I’ve found to this appears to be blocking 
hang...@nylxs.com 


Feb 17, 2020, 05:13 by m...@runbox.com:

The list has flooded me with hundreds of repeated messages. I have
received two unsubscribe messages, but I am still not 
unsubscribed.

Completely unwelcome and massive spamming (several hundred emails
over less than a week, most or all of them repeats from
gnu-misc-discuss.

Complete agreement with J.B. Nicholson on this issue.


On February 17, 2020 7:57:43 PM GMT+07:00, nipponm...@firemail.cc 
wrote:

 >Why don't you like being subscribed to his list?
 >I'm subscribed too, automatically, but I'm GLAD for it.
 >Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
 >What, this list isn't GOOD enough?
 >On 2020-02-17 04:40, J.B. Nicholson wrote:

Ruben Safir wrote:

Nobody but Stallman can do what he does, as a 
spokeman, and


 >strategic

planner to protect end users from the abuses of 
non-free

software.


If that's true then everything RMS headed up is in deep
trouble. At
some point everyone needs to be replaced if only because
nobody lives
forever. I don't agree with the above quoted claim. I 
think it's
possible to find whom we need to keep the free software 
social
movement going and I think it's important that more people 
speak

publicly about software freedom as a value unto itself.

I won't post to your other mailing list to which I was
apparently
subscribed without asking, and I cannot unsubscribe (the
links in the
email were unreachable). I shouldn't have to unsubscribe 
as I

shouldn't have been subscribed in that manner in the first
place.
___
Hangout mailing list
hang...@nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Richard Stallman should be reinstated to President of the FSF

[nipponmail]

Why don't you like being subscribed to his list?
I'm subscribed too, automatically, but I'm GLAD for it.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
What, this list isn't GOOD enough?
On 2020-02-17 04:40, J.B. Nicholson wrote:

Ruben Safir wrote:

Nobody but Stallman can do what he does, as a spokeman, and strategic
planner to protect end users from the abuses of non-free software.


If that's true then everything RMS headed up is in deep trouble. At
some point everyone needs to be replaced if only because nobody lives
forever. I don't agree with the above quoted claim. I think it's
possible to find whom we need to keep the free software social
movement going and I think it's important that more people speak
publicly about software freedom as a value unto itself.

I won't post to your other mailing list to which I was apparently
subscribed without asking, and I cannot unsubscribe (the links in the
email were unreachable). I shouldn't have to unsubscribe as I
shouldn't have been subscribed in that manner in the first place.
___
Hangout mailing list
hang...@nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] about the GNU promise

[nipponmail]

Translations are derivative works of the original.

On 2020-02-14 18:45, Alexandre François Garreau wrote:

Le lundi 3 février 2020, 16:28:52 CET Benno Schulenberg a écrit :

But in practice the GNU project requires
that significant contributors sign a copyright assignment, and that
translators sign a copyright disclaimer.


Well, maybe it concerns only softwares, but once rms wrote something on 
ML
to be published on gnu.org, and within the hour I translated it in 
french,

sent it to the translators list and it got published on the website.  I
didn’t sign anything.  And my copyright is still on it.  That quite
surprised myself.  This sounds unpractical (what if the original gets
slightly updated?).

Anyway.
___
Hangout mailing list
hang...@nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] gnu social construct 1.0 endorsement

[nipponmail]

The GPL is the social contract upon which this whole movement is based. 
It works because it doesn't interfere with everyone's various religions.


These other "social contracts" are extraneous impositions, by people who 
worship whatever America's current religion is.


On 2020-02-14 04:51, Ruben Safir wrote:

Fuck you and your illconceived campaign to destroy GNU


And fuck that mailing list run by a theif and a bully

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:25:33PM -0700, Mark Galassi wrote:


I am the founder and co-maintainer of the GNU Scientific Library, and 
of
Dominion, and I am GNU contributor since 1985.  I endorse version 1.0 
of

the GNU Social Contract, available at
.

Mark Galassi



--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

___
Hangout mailing list
hang...@nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout

Re: Cause for bans

[nipponmail]

Dear Ruben Safir,
If you're going to take legal action, take it. Don't just "threaten" 
forever. Your "threats" and unhappiness have no meaning if you do not 
take the next step (note: legal "threats" are not threats)
200 dollar filing fee, have one of your friends help you pro-bono. If 
you have a case, do it. And forward me the case number as I would like 
to watch (I mean that sincerely, I like to read as cases unfold). I 
don't like censorship either, or extraneous writings (such as social 
contracts) non-attorneys try to impose in-order to extend or modify the 
actual copyright licenses and practices that actual copyright holders 
and developers have decided upon.



On 2020-02-04 18:34, Ruben Safir wrote:

On 2/2/20 5:37 AM, Ales Cepek wrote:

I was not sure whether to endorse the GNU Social Contract or not, but
you definitely convinced me that I should. Thank you for removing my
doubts.



Thank You!


This is now enough evidence to bring to court for legal action. It
proves that the site is intentionally misrepresnting the GNU project 
and

that it succeeds in causing confusion, : IE it is a successful phishing
site.



Aleš Čepek

On 2/1/20 9:23 PM, facebook wrote:

https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct



This webpage is cause for banning of individuals from the GNU 
Project.

It is PHISHING of the GNU organization

and prclaims policies for GNU that didn't come from its official
governing structure.



These individuals need to be banned, regardless of what contribution
they make.  There is no justificiation for PHISHING the GNU name and
organiziation.  This is a serious legal and ethical violation that 
has
to be forcefully confronted.  Also, be aware, that failure to protect 
a

trade mark is cause for the government to rule against trademark
authorization and pocession.  They need to be zelously protected, or
they are legally lost.


Ruben






--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

Re: Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)?

[nipponmail]

It does not matter how common this way of doing buisness is.
It is still a blatant violation of the Copyright holders terms.

The Copyright holder has allowed GrSecurity to do something they, by 
default, have no right to do (create and distribute [non-seperable] 
derivative works), ONLY if they follow the Copyright holder's 
directives.


The Copyright holder has stipulated that each distributee has the 
permission to FREELY create derivative works based on the work and 
FREELY distribute said original work and said derivative works, but that 
they ONLY have this permission IF they also extend those rights to 
down-the-line-distributees AND they DO NOT add ANY additional 
_RESTRICTIONS_ on that right.


If GrSecurity was _NOT_ adding an additional restriction it would NOT 
need an "access agreement" (no-redistribution agreement).


They are BLATANTLY violating section 6.

Please read:
perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/

Please.

The reason why this business model works is because:

1)Not-any-old-lawyer can walk into Federal Court.
You have to be accepted into the Federal Bar for that 
district/circuit/etc (IIRC). Which means one of the 
allready-on-federal-bar lawyers has to allow you in and vouch for you. 
That makes for fewer high priced lawyers


2) The costs will be high: half a million plus in legal fees in the end.

3) You win court-costs ONLY if you have registered your copyright BEFORE 
the violation you are suing defendant over, and also BEFORE any 
same/similar violation. Otherwise you only get regular damages (revenue, 
or profits, or what the defendant would have paid you for a license (0 
dollars), whichever the court wishes). (Note: you have to register your 
copyright at the time of the suit atleast, but if it is after the 
violations you don't get statutory damages nor do you get attorney's 
fees)


Also read this EFF brief, page 10 etc. It has some discussion on the 
violation: 
perens.com/static/OSS_Spenger_v_Perens/0_2018cv15189/docs1/pdf/18.pdf


On 2019-11-04 21:14, Florian Weimer wrote:

* nipponmail:

You are incorrect. GPL version 2 section 6 states that one shall not 
add

additional restrictions between the agreement between the licensee and
further licensees. It governs that relationship vis-a-vis the 
protected

Work.

GrSecurity has, indeed, stipulated an additional restrictive term.
 From: You may distribute derivative works freely.
GrSecurity has forced customers to agree to: We shall not distribute 
the

(non-separable) derivative work EXCEPT to our own customers (when
required).

That is clearly an additional restrictive term.


I assume they did this as part of their subscription agreement.  Their
customers are free to terminate that agreement and exercise their
rights under the GPL.  They just can't have it both ways.

I believe this a fairly common approach to subscription and service
agreements for GPL software.

Re: Why don't gnu.org and RMS sign mail? - FDE Crypto

[nipponmail]

I was describing the steps one needs to go through to get a Gnu/Linux 
system installed on a laptop. I did it a month or two ago. It's not as 
easy as it was in the past because of secure boot. You must use the 
pre-installed OS to disable the secure boot: you _cannot_ do it from the 
bios.


On 2019-11-04 16:38, a...@gnu.org wrote:

Please keep discussions related to technical issues about the GNU
system, non-free platforms are entierly off-topic for this list.

Re: Why don't gnu.org and RMS sign mail? - FDE Crypto

[nipponmail]

Getting GNU/Linux onto a laptop these days is quite the difficulty if 
you don't know what you're doing because of Secure Boot. It's not a plug 
and play thing like once it was. Probably discourages alot of users.


Linux doesn't have any security after GrSecurity went proprietary 
(something that isn't supposed to be possible, but no one will spend the 
500k to sue them)


On 2019-11-04 21:11, Florian Weimer wrote:

* Jean Louis:


* gameonli...@redchan.it  [2019-11-04 14:05]:
Windows is required to disable the trusted computing locks in Most 
new
laptops. Other than windows there are only a few signed operating 
systems
that can be installed without disabling said locks, and they are 
signed by

microsoft.



Dr. Stallman was warning about it: https://stallman.org/intel.html


The FSF has given out an award in support of Secure Boot-related work,
so its approach to the matter is rather ambiguous.

Secure Boot with the second Microsoft key is dead from a security
perspective.  I think all GNU/Linux vendors nowadays have deliberate
backdoors into ring 0.  This means that you can boot any operating
system, pretending that Secure Boot is enabled, while in fact it is
not.  Furthermore, downgrade protection was never implemented for
Linux, so you can boot a vulnerable kernel with a known root-to-ring-0
vulnerability, and use that to boot anything else.

There was never a real effort to get a secured boot into userspace, so
any security benefit to GNU/Linux would have been extremely slim
anyway.  Clear security goals for the Secure Boot under the Microsoft
trust root have never been specified.

There is the first Microsoft key, reserved to their own operating
systems, which does not have these problems.  As far as I know, no
GNU/Linux distributions are signed by it.  I have only encountered it
in isolation as an option in Hyper-V.  Physical x86 hardware I've seen
always came with both sets of keys installed.

In the end, what remains is the hassle that Secure Boot creates for
many users, with very little to no benefit to anyone whatsoever.

I knew this would happen and wrote extensively against Secure Boot.
That became a futile exercise when the FSF started supporting it, too.
Sadly, it is impossible nowadays to get rid of useless cruft if it has
“Secure” in its name.

To be clear here, the problem is not the Microsoft trust root.  I'm
pretty sure Microsoft would happily hand over the trust root to any
credible organization that would be willing to manage it and absorb
the risk.  A lot of organizations and governments criticize central
control over such keys, but very few are actually willing to manage a
trust root.  The same thing happened with DNSSEC.

Re: Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)? - BP and EFF have addressed

[nipponmail]

Bruce Perens and the EFF have addressed this, it is indeed a violation 
to add an additional restrictive term such as that: they are threatening 
a penalty, using a negative covenant, if the customer utilizes the 
permissions granted to him (and GrSecurity) by the Copyright holder of 
the original Work. GrSecurity does not have an independent legal right 
to create non-separable derivative works _at_all_, they only have 
permission to do so IF abiding by the terms the Copyright holder set 
regarding HIS Work: which are NO additional restrictive terms. Here 
GrSecurity HAS added an additional restrictive term: NO free 
redistribution of the derivative work: and they enforce this via 
penalty:


perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/

Page 10 onward has discussion on the copyright issue aswell:
perens.com/static/OSS_Spenger_v_Perens/0_2018cv15189/docs1/pdf/18.pdf

(And yes, IAAL)


On 2019-11-04 17:36, a...@gnu.org wrote:

One is not under obligation to guarantee that new versions are
distributed to someone, which also means obligations can be terminated
for any reason.  So while grsecurity might not be doing the morally
and ethically right thing, I do not think they are violating the GNU
GPL.  You're still free to redistribute the patches, but grsecurity
isn't under obligation to give you future updates.

Their agreement text is located at
https://grsecurity.net/agree/agreement_faq

Re: Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)?

[nipponmail]

You are incorrect. GPL version 2 section 6 states that one shall not add 
additional restrictions between the agreement between the licensee and 
further licensees. It governs that relationship vis-a-vis the protected 
Work.


GrSecurity has, indeed, stipulated an additional restrictive term.
From: You may distribute derivative works freely.
GrSecurity has forced customers to agree to: We shall not distribute the 
(non-separable) derivative work EXCEPT to our own customers (when 
required).


That is clearly an additional restrictive term.

Yes, I am a lawyer. A court would not be "tricked" by GrSecurity putting 
it's additional restrictive term in a separate writing. The license is 
instructions about what you are allowed to do with Copyright Holder's 
work; He EXPLICITLY forbade additional restrictive terms.


GrSecurity does not have a pre-existing legal right to create 
non-separable derivative works at all. The default rights are: nothing 
(all rights reservered).


On 2019-11-04 17:36, a...@gnu.org wrote:

One is not under obligation to guarantee that new versions are
distributed to someone, which also means obligations can be terminated
for any reason.  So while grsecurity might not be doing the morally
and ethically right thing, I do not think they are violating the GNU
GPL.  You're still free to redistribute the patches, but grsecurity
isn't under obligation to give you future updates.

Their agreement text is located at
https://grsecurity.net/agree/agreement_faq

Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)?

[nipponmail]

(Note: Sending here now as this the other list was for tech discussions 
instead, oh an they lied: the pre-moderation is still on (for me, 
because they do not want this topic discussed (and have admitted so))). 
(SFConservancy hasn't done anything in years, FSF Legal is the same)

.
RMS:.
Could you share your thoughts, if any, of why no one will sue GrSecurity 
("Open Source Security" (a Pennsylvania company)) for their blatant 
violation of section 6 of version 2 of the GNU General Public License?.

.
Both regarding their GCC plugins and their Linux-Kernel patch which is a 
non-separable derivative work?.

.
They distribute such under a no-redistribution agreement to paying 
customers (the is the only distribution they do). If the customer 
redistributes the derivative works they are punished..

.
That is: GrSecurity (OSS) has created a contract to /Defeat/ the GPL and 
has done so successfully so far. Very successfully. The GPL is basically 
the BSD license now, since such as been allowed to stand..

.
This is how businesses see the GPL. They are no longer afraid: They will 
simply do what GrSecurity has done. Something that was supposed to stay 
liberated: a security patch that helped users maintain their privacy by 
not being immediately rooted when using a linux kernel on a GNU system; 
is now non-free..

.
With this the GPL _fails_..
.
NO ONE has sued GrSecurity. Thus they are seen as "having it right" 
"correct" "we can do this"..

.
Wouldn't the FSF have standing regarding the GCC plugins atleast?.
Couldn't you all rally linux-kernel copyright holders to bring a joint 
action?.

.