Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:45:13 +0900 Joel Rees wrote: > Who can compete when Intel refuses to pay > the price of making CPUs that are unsafe at > progressively higher speeds? Er .. s/unsafe/safe/ ??? But basically +1 to everything (else) you wrote. Nick -- Never FDISK

Re: If no enforcement takes place between two parties (GPL) Was: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel

OK, I apologize to all who were involved in this conversation. I will block further emails from "aconcernedfossdev" and no longer encourage him. Bruce On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:24 PM, wrote: > These are simply counterpoints the defense would likely contend

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:12 AM, deloptes wrote: > Richard Stallman wrote: I don't think you should assume RMS is monitoring the debian list. >> I am not trying to study the GRsecurity case because (0) it's >> complicated, and it would take a lot of time to think about, (1)

Re: If no enforcement takes place between two parties (GPL) Was: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel

Well, you are confusing civil and criminal law. I assure you winning a laches defense is no sure thing, nor does it necessarily win the entire case, it is more likely to only limit the period of the offense for which the plaintiff may seek damages. And being a passive participant in Linus

Re: If no enforcement takes place between two parties (GPL) Was: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel

A laches might be created if all of the rights holders actually had the capability to enforce and were refraining from doing so. But they are restrained by finances. So, I don't believe there is any laches.

Re: If no enforcement takes place between two parties (GPL) Was: Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel

Bradley is uncomfortable with your (not mine) cc list. You should drop him from the next message. Things are different for a collective work. I don't believe Linus can represent the desires of all copyright holders.

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

Hi Bradley, I was proceeding after others in the community had already made contact and were rebuffed. I have definitely looked at the principles of GPL-oriented enforcement that SFC is currently distributing. I have some issues with your current policy. Let's discuss the policy of forgiveness

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

[ I'm not on debian-user regularly but I was dragged into the thread by a large cc list that Bruce started. Removing individual email addresses of possible non-list members, other than Bruce. ] Bruce, if you haven't looked at the Principles of of Community-Oriented Enforcement

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

Thank you. I did not have a copy of the Grsecurity Stable Patch Access Agreement before, and I've linked it to my article . IMO it's quite imprudent of them to put down in writing how they

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

I published an advisory regarding Grsecurity at http://perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ Thanks Bruce On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: >> >> I am not trying to study the

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

Richard Stallman wrote: > I am not trying to study the GRsecurity case because (0) it's > complicated, and it would take a lot of time to think about, (1) the > FSF has no say in the matter (it is about Linux) and (2) I don't think > the copany would heed whatever I might say. Could you explain

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

I think I'll be able to write something to inform present and potential customers of the lawsuit risk and their position as contributory infringers. This is more effective than writing to the company. Thanks Bruce On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] I am not trying to study the GRsecurity case because (0) it's complicated, and it

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

Michael Fothergill wrote: > Where would we be without spam and trolling? Where would we be without Bill Shatner, Kay Sievers and alike :) regards

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

On 15 June 2017 at 16:41, 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

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 02:25:54PM +0200, tony wrote: > On 15/06/17 17:41, aconcernedfoss...@airmail.cc wrote: > > Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly > > violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

On 15/06/17 17:41, aconcernedfoss...@airmail.cc 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

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

On Thursday 15 June 2017 16:41:56 aconcernedfoss...@airmail.cc wrote: > Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly > violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? It isn't that we don't care. It is that we feel helpless, which is just what Bard

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

Latincom wrote: > > deloptes, do you have a link to systemd background information, please? Not at the moment. I read multiple stories in the past few years - mostly mailing lists and articles from computer related sites. I don't gather this information, because I am not going to cite it.

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 22:38:07 +0200, deloptes wrote: > The story behind is really interesting and pretty long. I read about the > conflict perhaps 1/2y ago. Some of the accusations by GRSec make sense, > however they do not justify their policy. > In fact this is the best proof (IMO) how

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

Michael Milliman wrote: > Perhaps you could post a link where some of us can bone up on the issue? If I was the OP or I was making some statement I would like to back up I would, otherwise I assume people on that list can babyfeed themselves. regards

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

Michael Fothergill wrote: > But you have beaten me to the punch in a subtle way which I am both > impressed and humbled by. I assume there are other similar stories, but I don't know much of them - time is precious nowdays. However systemd was inevitable and revealed a an interesting story. Some

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

On 15 June 2017 at 21:38, deloptes wrote: > Richard Owlett wrote: > > > On 06/15/2017 02:10 PM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Hmm, am I feeding the spammer? [snip] > > > > Likely > > > >> > >> PS: aconcernedfossdev doesn't "command" much respect in my mind, > >> especially

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

On 06/15/2017 03:38 PM, deloptes wrote: > Richard Owlett wrote: > >> On 06/15/2017 02:10 PM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Hmm, am I feeding the spammer? [snip] >> >> Likely >> >>> >>> PS: aconcernedfossdev doesn't "command" much respect in my mind, >>> especially with no better explanation of

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

Hello, On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:38:07PM +0200, deloptes wrote: > I do however think GRSec are wrong as the OP states, they clearly violate > the license agreements. > IMO everyone in the linux community should know the background of that story > same as the background of systemd ... but there

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

Richard Owlett wrote: > On 06/15/2017 02:10 PM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: >> Hmm, am I feeding the spammer? [snip] > > Likely > >> >> PS: aconcernedfossdev doesn't "command" much respect in my mind, >> especially with no better explanation of the problem than what I read >> here. > > +1 The

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

On 06/15/2017 02:10 PM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm, am I feeding the spammer? [snip] Likely PS: aconcernedfossdev doesn't "command" much respect in my mind, especially with no better explanation of the problem than what I read here. +1

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

Hmm, am I feeding the spammer? Some comments to the OP interspersed below--or maybe I'll just top post... I don't know too much about the issue, and your second paragraph doesn't help much. Let me ask, does Linus care--has he or some other noteworthy in the Linux / foss world made some sort

Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

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