No banners, make a banners thread

/g/ - Technolo/g/y

No encryption or P2P talk


New Thread
X
Max 20 files0 B total
[New Thread]

Page: Prev [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Next | View | Catalog | Banners | Logs


thumbnail of Monogatari_Series_anime_girls_Oshino_Shinobu_red_eyes_blonde-1383217.jpg!d.png
thumbnail of Monogatari_Series_anime_girls_Oshino_Shinobu_red_eyes_blonde-1383217.jpg!d.png
Monogatari_Series_ani... png
(792.8 KB, 1600x1000)
>  https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/28/2518
>  The message you requested cannot be found.
> The message you requested cannot be found. The message with the url http://feisty.lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/28/2518 does not exist in the database.
2 replies omitted. Click to expand viewer
thumbnail of 220px-KanameMadoka.png
thumbnail of 220px-KanameMadoka.png
220px-Kana... png
(88.75 KB, 220x336)
 >>/79489051/
> Why do they cling to gpl if they just ignore it?
Ask them.
Email them at linux-kernel(at)vger.kernel.org
Then check lkml.org
Ask them why they ignore the Grsecurity GPL violation.

 >>/79489063/
Didn't think they'd delete it. LKML used to not censor. They also used to debate such things.

Here is a new email sent:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2021/1/1/115
(Which the wayback machine's save-page-now won't archive, just spins and spins and spins)

thumbnail of 81x0u83lcUL._RI_.jpg
thumbnail of 81x0u83lcUL._RI_.jpg
81x0u83lcUL._RI_ jpg
(423.68 KB, 2560x1920)
 >>/79489051/
> Why do they cling to gpl if they just ignore it?
Why do enemies pretend to be friends?
They want you to do work for them for free: so they induce in you a belief that you will get code by way of the GPL if anyone modifies the code you contribute.

This is what drives the free-labour done. They then ban and delete any complaints about GPL violations, or stay silent and do not talk about them. The FSF and the Software Freedom Conservancy are the same, as Bradly Spengler notes:

>  https://twitter.com/spendergrsec/status/1293155787859206146
> Importantly, neither the FSF nor the SFC, nor in fact any actual lawyer agrees with this bizarre claim from an anonymous troll. More info about the source of the claim can be found here: https://grsecurity.net/setting_the_record_straight_on_oss_v_perens_part1
>  Thanks for doing your part, "Dr" to continue the troll's harrassment

>  >LOL. " #GRSecurity violates both the Linux kernel's copyright and the #GCC #copyright by forbidding redistribution of the patches (in their Access Agreement): which are non-seperable derivative works...

The FSF and the SFConservancy and "Any Lawyer" believe that claiming that Grsecurity violates the GPL by restricting redistribution is a "unsupported bizzare claim" according to Bradly Spengler.


The FSF head does NOT use free software: he is an apple faggot. Same with the SFconservancy (who don't do anything anyway, much like the FSF).

The only thing they do is:
1) Effectively embezzle donations
2) Pay themselves
3) Pay women
4) Give terrible legal advice.
5) Ban anyone who discusses GPL enforcement.













Having defeated a defamation claim for speculating that using Grsecurity's Linux kernel hardening code may expose you to legal risk under the terms of the GPLv2 license, Bruce Perens is back in court.

    This time, he's demanding Bradley Spengler \u2013 who runs Open Source Security Inc and develops Grsecurity \u2013 foots his hefty legal bills, after Spengler failed to successfully sue Perens for libel.

    Perens, a noted figure in the open source community, and his legal team from O'Melveny & Myers LLP \u2013 as they previously told The Register \u2013 want to be awarded attorneys' fees under California's anti-SLAPP statute, a law designed to deter litigation that aims to suppress lawful speech.

    That deterrence takes the form of presenting unsuccessful litigants with the bill for the cost of defending against meritless claims.

    "Plaintiffs Open Source Security, Inc. and Bradley Spengler sued Defendant Bruce Perens to bully him from expressing his opinions that Plaintiffs' business practices violate Open Source licensing conditions and to discourage others from expressing the same opinions," Perens' latest filing, submitted to a US district court in San Francisco today, declared.

    "Rather than allowing the public to judge Plaintiffs' contrary opinions through public debate, Plaintiffs tried to 'win' the argument on this unsettled legal issue by suing him."

    [...]

    Perens is asking for $667,665.25 in fees, which covers 833.9 hours expended on the litigation by numerous attorneys and a $188,687.75 success fee agreed upon to allow Perens to retain representation he might not otherwise have been able to afford.
    
http://perens.com/2018/02/08/bruce-perens-seeks-mandatory-award-of-legal-fees-for-his-defense-in-open-source-security-inc-and-bradley-spengler-v-bruce-perens/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/08/bruce_perens_grsecurity_anti_slapp/



Bruce Perens issues an advisory regarding the GRSecurity copyright issue:
https://perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/
< blockquote>

Warning: Grsecurity: Potential contributory infringement and breach of contract risk for customers

It\u2019s my strong opinion that your company should avoid the Grsecurity product sold at grsecurity.net because it presents a contributory infringement and breach of contract risk.

Grsecurity is a patch for the Linux kernel which, it is claimed, improves its security. It is a derivative work of the Linux kernel which touches the kernel internals in many different places. It is inseparable from Linux and can not work without it. it would fail a fair-use test (obviously, ask offline if you don\u2019t understand). Because of its strongly derivative nature of the kernel, it must be under the GPL version 2 license, or a license compatible with the GPL and with terms no more restrictive than the GPL. Earlier versions were distributed under GPL version 2.

Currently, Grsecurity is a commercial product and is distributed only to paying customers. My understanding from several reliable sources is that customers are verbally or otherwise warned that if they redistribute the Grsecurity patch, as would be their right under the GPL, that they will be assessed a penalty: they will no longer be allowed to be customers, and will not be granted access to any further versions of Grsecurity. GPL version 2 section 6 explicitly prohibits the addition of terms such as this redistribution prohibition.

By operating under their policy of terminating customer relations upon distribution of their GPL-licensed software, Open Source Security Inc., the owner of Grsecurity, creates an expectation  that the customer\u2019s business will be damaged by losing access to support and later versions of the product, if that customer exercises their re-distribution right under the GPL license. This is tantamount to the addition of a term to the GPL prohibiting distribution or creating a penalty for distribution. GPL section 6 specifically prohibits any addition of terms.  Thus, the GPL license, which allows Grsecurity to create its derivative work of the Linux kernel, terminates, and the copyright of the Linux Kernel is infringed. The contract from the Linux kernel developers to both Grsecurity and the customer which is inherent in the GPL is breached.

As a customer, it\u2019s my opinion that you would be subject to both contributory infringement and breach of contract by employing this product in conjunction with the Linux kernel under the no-redistribution policy currently employed by Grsecurity.

I have previously endorsed a company that distributes enhanced versions of GPL software to paying customers, but that company operated differently (and in a way that I would recommend to Grsecurity). They did not make any threat to customers regarding redistribution. They publicly distributed their commercial version within 9 months to one year after its customer-only distribution.

This other company was essentially receiving payment from its customers for the work of making new GPL software available to the public after a relatively short delay, and thus they were doing a public benefit and were, IMO, in compliance with the letter of GPL though perhaps not the spirit. In contrast, Grsecurity does no redeeming public service, and does not allow any redistribution of their Linux derivative, in direct contravention to the GPL terms.

In the public interest, I am willing to discuss this issue with companies and their legal counsel, under NDA, without charge.

I am an intellectual property and technology specialist who advises attorneys, not an attorney. This is my opinion and is offered as advice to your attorney. Please show this to him or her. Under the law of most states, your attorney who is contracted to you is the only party who can provide you with legal advice.
< /blockquote>



https://slashdot.org/submission/7198251/bruce-perens---warning-




I told you this would happen, you all said it wouldn't, I assured you he would go full commercial within a year. He did. --MikeeUSA

GRSecurity removes public testing patch - goes full commercial.

http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/06/04/24

> "Don't worry about it, there's nothing for a "grateful" user like yourself

> to download anymore.  Boy, if I had more "grateful" users like yourself

> obsessed with harrassing us on Twitter, Reddit, and IRC so that they

> can go around and paint themselves as some kind of victim, I wouldn't

> know what to do with myself.

> 

> -Brad"


The solution?
As I said before, Copyright licenses (like any license) are freely revocable unless barred by estoppel. The GPL v2 lacks a no-revocation clause thus estoppel would be more difficult to argue (additonally none of the "agreeing parties" have ever met each other).

GrSecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel, it is non-seperable: it wholly relies on the linux kernel source code to work.

The linux kernel is not under joint copyright, it is simply a collection of derivative work upon derivative work.

The solution is for one or many of the rightsholders to the code GRSecurity is derived from/ modifies to rescind Brad Spengler's license to use or modify their code.

Brad no longer contributes to us. This is his stab at us all. Stab back.

Addionally there were third parties who contributed to the GRSecurity code base when it was publically distributed.

Brad Spengler prevents a private purchaser from redistributing the sourcecode via contract clauses between him and they: thus willfully frustrating the purpose of the license HE was granted by the linux kernel rightsholders. This is another reason a court may find him in violation of the license grant of the GPL. As we discussed previously.

Also Brad Spengler threatens others with lawsuit in a nearly transparent attempt to get them to stop porting over the work: 

> " This stops *now* or I'm sending lawyers after you and















GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute (by threatening them with a non-renewal of a contract to recive this patch to the linux kernel.)
(GRsecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel (it is a patch))

People who have dealt with them have attested to this fact:
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/censorship&#95;linux&#95;developer&#95;steals&#95;page&#95;from&#95;randi/
"You will also lose the access to the patches in the form of grsec not renewing the contract.  
Also they've asked us (a Russian hosting company) for $17000+ a year for access their stable patches. $17k is quite a lot for us. A question about negotiating a lower price was completely ignored. Twice." -- fbt2lurker

And it is suggested to be the case here aswell:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4gxdlh/after&#95;15&#95;years&#95;of&#95;research&#95;grsecuritys&#95;rap&#95;is&#95;here/
"Do you work for some company that pays for Grsecurity? If so then would you kindly excersise the rights given to you by GPL and send me a tarball of all the latest patches and releases?" -- lolidaisuki
"sadly (for this case) no, i work in a human rights organization where we get the patches by a friendly and richer 3rd party of the same field. we made the compromise to that 3rd party to not distribute the patches outside and as we deal with some critical situations i cannot afford to compromise that even for the sake of gpl :/
the "dumber" version for unstable patches will make a big problem for several projects, i would keep an eye on them. this situation cannot be hold for a long time" -- disturbio



Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) part, with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has with the original licensor?



(Also Note: the stable branch now contains features that will never make it to the "testing" branch, and are not allowed to be redistributed, per the scheme mentioned above (which has been successful: not one version of the stable branch has been released by anyone, even those asked to do so, since the scheme has been put in place (they say they cannot as they cannot lose access to the patch as that may cost the lives and freedom of activists in latin america)))
https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/726101158561882112
@xoreipeip @grsecurity they call it a "demo" version "20:14 &lt spender> what's in the public version is &lt 1/5th the size of the full version"
oreipeip @grsecurity "20:21 &lt spender> also it wouldn't be as fast as the commercial version [...] there are missing optimization passes"



Post(s) action:


Moderation Help
Scope:
Duration: Days

Ban Type:


0 replies | 0 file
Refresh
New Thread
Max 20 files0 B total