SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the the-GPL-is-open-to-interpretation dept.
Grsecurity® is an extensive security enhancement to the Linux kernel that defends against a wide range of security threats through intelligent access control, memory corruption-based exploit prevention, and a host of other system hardening that generally require no configuration. It has been actively developed and maintained for the past 14 years. Commercial support for grsecurity is available through Open Source Security, Inc.
In a big red block at the top of their home page is the following warning:
Important Notice Regarding Public Availability of Stable Patches
Due to continued violations by several companies in the embedded industry of grsecurity®'s trademark and registered copyrights, effective September 9th 2015 stable patches of grsecurity will be permanently unavailable to the general public. For more information, read the full announcement.
And I thought GRSecurity was based on the GPL'd work called "Linux". Guess I was wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07 2015, @03:40PM
-!- Irssi: Starting query in OFTC with ryao
23:14 [ryao] If you are an attorney, then here is some advice. Others in the channel know that the trademark case is weak. We just keep our
mouths shut.
23:15 [cylinder] I don't.
23:15 [cylinder] Because once you stop publishing grsec, I'm not on your side.
23:15 [ryao] How is that?
23:15 [cylinder] Linux is worthless without grsec.
23:16 [ryao] I don't understand how his mind works. I am not going to tell him what is right and wrong as he is smart enough to learn the
hard way.
23:16 [cylinder] (Atleast on the net)
23:16 [ryao] You cannot force him to provide you with patches.
23:16 [cylinder] If he learns the hard way he'll just quit grsec dev completely
23:17 [cylinder] He can be forced to stop working on derivative works of linux alltogether, even in his own home.
23:17 [ryao] Arguing in the channel isn't going to help.
23:17 [cylinder] If he doesn't have permission, then statutory damages apply.
23:17 [ryao] Ah, yeah. The GPL has a clause about something like that, but only if he violates it.
23:17 [ryao] Can you claim that he is in violation?
23:18 [cylinder] ryao is the GPL a fully integrated document?
23:18 [ryao] My understanding is yes.
23:18 [cylinder] It isn't
23:18 [ryao] Have you read it?
23:18 [cylinder] no integration clause.
23:18 [cylinder] yes
23:18 [cylinder] v2
23:18 [ryao] Okay. Maybe I do not understand what a fully integrated document is.
23:18 [cylinder] ryao in lay terms, the document claims it covers all bases of the agreement etc
23:19 [cylinder] you need an integration clause for that
23:19 [ryao] Okay. Then no.
23:19 [cylinder] also your contract then usually is about a book in length
23:20 [cylinder] ok, then we can bring in extrinsic evidence to define the terms of the agreement between the various rights holders to
linux, and spengler.
23:20 [cylinder] basically: filling in all that the document leaves out
23:20 [ryao] Hmm.. I don't see the clause I recall about revoking rights. Tha tmust be under something else.
23:20 [cylinder] (it can even be adverse to the written text of the document, at times)
23:21 [ryao] Quite frankly, I think Spengler's trademark case is weak because he failed to file for a trademark.
23:21 [cylinder] If the rightsholders did not intend for derivative works to beable to be closed in this case, and this can be shown, then
spengler is in violation of their copyright
23:21 [cylinder] and liable for statutory damages
23:21 [ryao] I also think he is upset mostly about the patches being integrated without proper updates to resolve issues.
23:22 [cylinder] now that is _IF_ the GPL is a contract
23:22 [cylinder] if it's just a license, any one of them can revoke spenglers permission at will
23:22 [ryao] My understanding is that you can make any derived works you want and do whatever you want with them provided that you do not
redistribute them.
23:22 [cylinder] (unless estopped)
23:22 [ryao] s/derived/derivative/
23:22 [cylinder] ryao yes I know, that's the lay interpretation.
23:22 [cylinder] and I'm telling you it's wrong.
23:22 [ryao] If he makes derivative works and attempts to attach additioanl terms, that is a problem.
23:23 [ryao] How is that wrong?
23:23 [cylinder] because you don't take into account the foundations of how one grants permission
23:23 [cylinder] Copyright restricts the right of others to copy or modify the work.
23:23 [cylinder] by what operation of law can one grant permission?
23:23 [cylinder] Property law and Contract law
23:24 [cylinder] only under contract law can you really make an irrevokable grant or permit.
23:24 [cylinder] (you can do almost anything under contract law: it's all agreements between parties)
23:24 [cylinder] but, as I said before, then we look to extrinsic evidence to flesh out the full terms of the agreement
23:25 [cylinder] (since the four corner rule does not apply, not being a fully integrated agreement)
23:25 [cylinder]
23:25 [ryao] Wouldn't this be covered by modification? Also, does any of this apply if he just keeps his changes to himself?
23:26 [cylinder] Strike your first question because we are "below" the area of whatever is in the agreement or license.
23:26 [cylinder] Yes it applys if he keeps his changes to himself.
23:26 [ryao] Seriously, everyone developing GPL software has modified versions that aren't necessarily published. Some are bad and others
just do not have the time to publish them.
23:26 [ryao] If this is the case, developing GPL software as a community effort is not possible.
23:26 [cylinder] If he has no license, and no contract or has violated the contract, he may not modify the copyrighted work
23:26 [cylinder] 23:26 [ryao] If this is the case, developing GPL software as a community effort is not possible.
23:26 [cylinder] Bingo
23:27 [cylinder] Only by good will
23:27 [ryao] That would apply to Linux kernel development too.
23:27 [cylinder] which is why I wish someone would ask spengler not to close grsec.
23:27 [ryao] Which means every Linux kernel developer is in violation.
23:27 [cylinder] :) now you're seeing it
23:27 [ryao] Myself included. we all have versions of Linux that were not published.
23:27 [cylinder] is that the future spengler wants?
23:28 [ryao] I think this is reductio ad absurdem.
23:28 [cylinder] ryao would you like other's opinions on opensource "licenses"?
23:28 [cylinder] when you build your house on sand....
23:28 [ryao] The GPL was never intended to force people to publish derived works for internal use. There are plenty of legal departments
that have said that this is fine. Facebook for instance has modified MySQL code that they do not share.
23:28 [cylinder] I'd rather there not be a reason to test these things in court.
23:29 [cylinder] But if spengler wants it to be so, we can do so.
23:29 [ryao] This line of reasoning is absurd. Requirements on source disclosure only apply to distribution. If you don't distribute, you
do not need to disclose source.
23:29 [cylinder] The whole thing can be invalidated.
23:29 [cylinder] believe that if you wish.
23:30 [cylinder] But you might want to read some case books etc.
23:30 [ryao] That is the thinking of everyone involved in OSS, including their attorneys.
23:30 [cylinder] it doesn't matter.
23:31 [cylinder] This is a worst case senario, where the case could go.
23:31 [cylinder] It could also be decided the GPL is a bare license (not so good either)
23:31 [ryao] I think a meteorite striking every Linux kernel developer on the planet is more likely.
23:31 [cylinder] or a contract (best IMHO, then can bring in extrinsic evidence)
23:32 [cylinder] ryao that's why you're known as a lay person: you're just ignorant.
23:32 [ryao] I have spoken to attorneys who are willing to have their bar numbers verified.
23:32 [cylinder] Doesn't it suck when behind each door lays a trap?
23:32 [ryao] Not about Spengler's case though.
23:32 [cylinder] They want work.
23:33 [ryao] I don't think any judge is going to disagree with all of the legal thinking on the matter. Your position is unique.
23:33 [ryao] Also, there is a matter of jurisdiction too. Law is different in different places.
23:34 [ryao] Maybe this might apply where you practice law (although I cannot confirm that you actually do), but I do not think it will
apply in any jurisdiction where this case might be held.
23:34 [ryao] If it is held... it is weak.
23:34 [ryao] And I don't think you have a case either. You don't hvae copyright on anything in the kernel from what I know so far.
23:34 [cylinder] Here's an online resource you can read, it's from AU, but the basics are the same in the US and the UK:
23:34 [cylinder] http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html [ilaw.com.au]
23:35 [ryao] You are also incredibly unlikely to fnd someone with copyright to join you on your crusade.
23:36 [cylinder] here's a US one on license vs contract:
23:36 [cylinder] http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.html [washington.edu]
23:37 [ryao] Licenses grant rights. Contracts are agreements with signatures.
23:37 [cylinder] The law is very similar though, the difference is that Copyright is granted by Constitution-]Statute in the US, and simply
parlimetary staute in the UK and AU. (Originally royal patent in the UK IIRC)
23:37 [cylinder] ryao licenses can be revoked at will.
23:37 [cylinder] property law 101.
23:38 [cylinder] who ever told you a signed writing was needed for a contract?
23:38 [ryao] http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/03/a-short-guide-to-open-source-and-similar-licenses/ [smashingmagazine.com]
23:38 [ryao] "A) ?Rights are perpetual?.. so are the BDSs, the GPL and MIT since they all have recurring ?anything derived from this has to
have this copyright notice?. Only one that doesn?t have this perpetuity is the LGPL license seems."
23:39 [cylinder] lol
23:39 [cylinder] hahhaha
23:39 [cylinder] grasp at straws
23:40 [cylinder] Why can't I even find the word estoppel in that short "guide" lol
23:40 [cylinder] I mean if they're going to make THAT claim...
23:41 [cylinder] ][ryao] You are also incredibly unlikely to fnd someone with copyright to join you on your crusade.
23:41 [cylinder] Lot of people may be pissed about what Spender is doing with their work.
23:41 [cylinder] just need one.
23:42 [ryao] Mind if I revoke your right to use Linux under your theory?
23:42 [cylinder] If you want to test it in court :)
23:43 [cylinder] I'll help you win
23:43 [ryao] To revoke your ability to use Linux?
23:43 [cylinder] then I'll use that precidence against spengler
23:43 [cylinder] (please be in same juristiction, please be in same juristiction)
23:44 [ryao] I don't think you would win either way against spengler if you weren't able to use Linux. Even if you win, you would still
lose.
23:44 [cylinder] Lot easier to throw a case than to win a case :)
23:44 [cylinder] ryao: all you linux people are pro-women's rights SJWs
23:44 [ryao] You wouldn't be able to use GRSecurity even if he changed his practices.
23:44 [cylinder] I'd be happy to help you lose it all.
23:44 [ryao] I think you are nuts. :/
23:45 [cylinder] I think I want to marry a nice young girl child like is allowed under the Old Testament
23:45 [cylinder] (Deuteronomy 22 28-29, hebrew)
23:45 [cylinder] but SJWs like you-all banned that in 1870s.
23:46 [cylinder] So if I could just get that sand to sweep away beneath your feet, I would become somewhat happy while what you had
crumbled.
23:47 [cylinder] But what do I know about the law. I am just a.... hellishly fat, ignorant-of-the-law, never-coded-anything for the last 14
years, nor contributed any media, etc etc, troll, right :)
23:47 [cylinder] That's what everybody tells me.
23:48 [cylinder] Such conflicts with my memories, and eyes, but ohwell.