Re: [DNG] on the supposed grsec gpl violation

[Bruce Perens]

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Jaromil  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

[DNG] on the supposed grsec gpl violation

[Jaromil]

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