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 Tuesday September 08 2015, @02:48AM
20:51 -!- Channel #nottor created Mon Sep 15 22:59:50 2008
20:51 [ greg] We've been discussing locating plaintiffs to bring suit on the issue of Brad Spengler of GRSecurity once he closes his derivative work (with some new discussions):
20:51 [ greg] https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/09/07/040206 [soylentnews.org] http://pipedot.org/pipe/KPRX [pipedot.org]
20:51 [ greg] http://oxwugzccvk3dk6tj.onion/tech/res/346860.html [oxwugzccvk3dk6tj.onion] http://pipedot.org/pipe/K33M [pipedot.org]
20:51 [ greg] If you've not been taught the law, don't try to debate the legal merits of the case and show yourself to be a lay fool, please.
20:51 [ virus] matt green from john hopkins unleashed his ph.d's students and himself and could not find an issue with crpyto
20:51 -!- Irssi: Join to #nottor was synced in 14 secs
20:51 [ coderman_] "bring suit on the issue of Brad Spengler of GRSecurity" ?
20:51 [ cacahuatl] Yeah, they were here yesterday flooding it
20:51 [ coderman_] is this like suing Theo under tort?
20:51 [ Wax] the khan academy lawyer is back
20:51 [ coderman_] :P
20:52 [ virus] lol
20:52 [ cacahuatl] They say that Linux contributers can sue him
20:52 [ virus] for?
20:52 [ cacahuatl] mumble mumble mumble
20:52 [ coderman_] Gee Pee Elll violashionz
20:52 [ greg] virus: read the links, the case is set out there.
20:53 [ cacahuatl] it's a case that doesn't improve anything
20:53 [ greg] the people here don't know the difference between a license and a contract.
20:53 [ virus] no seriously for what giving a shit about linux security when the kernel dev's themselves don't
20:53 [ cacahuatl] just for greedy law students to try and make money
20:53 [ greg] virus: Spengler has announced he is closing the stable patch.
20:53 [ coderman_] greg wants help grinding this axe
20:53 * coderman_ *sparks fly*
20:53 [ wgreenhouse] greg: I have been taught the law and think the case is without merit. The "contract theory of copyright" argument is blown apart by federal preemption; something that is adjudicated by a federal court as a copyright license stands or falls on that basis; you don't get to try it again as a state-law contract. Res judicata.
20:54 [ wgreenhouse] greg: also you have no damages yet, even hypothetical ones.
20:54 [ greg] if Linux is merely licensed, then any rightsholder can revoke it
20:54 [ virus] greg: i read that a week or so ago but it was because of lack of funds and the abuse of commercial interest with the product no?
20:54 [ greg] wgreenhouse: statutory damages.
20:54 [ ncl] I wonder why people keep taking him seriously when he's been spamming this for days
20:54 -!- tdruiva [~tdruiva@0SGAADOT8.tor-irc.dnsbl.oftc.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
20:54 [ coderman_] [greg] the truthiness of my agitation shall be leverage enough! bow to me, Mad Spender!
20:54 -!- tdruiva [~tdruiva@relay2.tor.maximilian-jacobsen.com] has joined #nottor
20:54 [ greg] wgreenhouse: Contract theory of copyright helps brad slightly, bare license is fine.
20:55 [ wgreenhouse] greg: None yet. You only have damages if requests for source are not honored; at the moment, and based on my reading of GRSec's "ultimatum," it looks like they'd simply direct you to the git repo.
20:55 [ wgreenhouse] which is a valid response to GPL requirement that source be available on request
20:55 [ greg] grsec is a derivative work.
20:55 [ wgreenhouse] it doesn't have to be made available in your preferred form, i.e. .patch files.
20:55 [ cacahuatl] Ask yourself: Who wants to see grsec fail?
20:55 [ greg] the stable patches are a derivative work.
20:55 [ cacahuatl] Then ponder on "greg"s motives :P
20:55 [ wgreenhouse] greg: I concede that. The question is if they are infringing derivative works. Right now, they are not.
20:55 [ greg] the git repo is another version of that derivative work.
20:56 [ wgreenhouse] No, it's a series of versions of that derivative work, including the stable patches
20:56 [ wgreenhouse] as release tags
20:56 [ Wax] he wants grsec to fail so kernel devs can do security correctly
20:56 [ greg] wgreenhouse: you really want Linux to be merely licensed so any rights holder can recind at any time?
20:56 [ cacahuatl] lol except they won't
20:56 [ wgreenhouse] So I think you have and will have no damages.
20:56 [ greg] Please answer me this.
20:56 [ greg] we will have statutory damages
20:56 [ greg] 100k per violation
20:57 [ cacahuatl] So you think Spender should just delete grsec?
20:57 [ wgreenhouse] greg: That's only if there is infringement, which requires interpreting the license. And your interpretation is nonsense.
20:57 [ wgreenhouse] greg: Copyright licenses are enormously powerful. Strict liability for infringement is a great thing to have.
20:57 [ wgreenhouse] You lose that if the GPL becomes a state-law contract.
20:57 [ greg] No we do not
20:57 [ virus] isn't he stopping release of stable because of infringment and lack of funds to pursue
20:57 [ wgreenhouse] Yes, you do. You cannot have it both ways.
20:58 [ greg] if Linux is licensed under a contract, it certainly isn't fully integrated
20:58 [ greg] no four corners doctrine
20:58 [ cacahuatl] virus: Right, it's not about money though.
20:58 [ wgreenhouse] greg: Which means that unintegrated terms would be inferred from conduct, which is not necessarily in the LF's favor.
20:58 [ wgreenhouse] greg: depends on the whims of your crazy state court judge
20:58 [ cacahuatl] grsec has always run on a shoestring budget for the work it produces
20:58 [ cacahuatl] like gpg
20:58 [ wgreenhouse] greg: and then that crazy judgment could be imposed elsewhere
20:58 [ greg] then we show the usage in trade, course of dealing, and intent of the parties. It is unlikely that it was intended that the code ever be closed.
20:59 [ greg] Contract is fine too thusly.
20:59 [ wgreenhouse] greg: You're comfortable leaving that decision to a state court in a forum chosen by the defendant?
20:59 [ wgreenhouse] as opposed to strict copyright liability?
20:59 [ wgreenhouse] you're an idiot.
20:59 [ greg] Yes, outcome doesn't affect me.
20:59 [ ncl] zzz
21:00 [ wgreenhouse] greg: Then you have, quite frankly, no business soliciting plaintiffs :D
21:00 [ cacahuatl] greg just wants to scam money out of people who want to scam money out of grsec
21:00 [ virus] greg wouldn't under your interpretation every dev for any project under GPL that stopped working on it or shut it down altogether be liable in the same way despite intention or motive
21:00 [ coderman_] it might get funny again, ncl
21:00 [ wgreenhouse] greg: Thanks for admitting that you don't care about the outcome in terms of the stability of adjudicating copyright licenses, though.
21:00 [ greg] wgreenhouse: if the outcome affected me, I'd pray I was a plaintiff.
21:00 * coderman_ keeps hope alive
21:00 [ greg] wgreenhouse: suggest to spengler that he reverse course then.
21:00 [ wgreenhouse] greg: If the outcome doesn't affect you, then why are you rabidly preaching this minority theory?
21:01 [ greg] wgreenhouse: I hate when the devil doesn't get his due.
21:01 [ greg] and OSS is a deal with the devil.
21:01 [ wgreenhouse] greg: I think what Spengler proposes to do is valid, so long as he makes some version of the stable patch source available. That doesn't have to be the .patch files; the git repo would suffice.
21:01 [ cacahuatl] lolwat
21:01 [ cacahuatl] okay 100% troll now
21:01 [ greg] You agree to give away your best years for nothing.
21:01 [ virus] instead of sueing we should be fundraising for the project
21:01 [ wgreenhouse] greg: Then he's basically charging for the privilege of running git format-patch
21:01 [ cacahuatl] LOL
21:01 [ greg] and many others are convinced to do the same.
21:01 [ cacahuatl] For nothing!
21:01 [ virus] greg we volunteer silly
21:01 [ cacahuatl] Spoken like a true capitalist
21:02 [ wgreenhouse] greg: ...okay, so you're kind of admitting that this business of interpreting the GPL as a contract is an attempt to kill the GPL.
21:02 [ cacahuatl] No sense of improvement for all people
21:02 [ virus] no one is forcing us to dev anything
21:02 [ greg] I'm an OSS contributor too, but I recognise what it is.
21:02 [ cacahuatl] It's about $$$
21:02 [ wgreenhouse] by subjecting it to conflicting state-court interpretations
21:02 [ cacahuatl] greg: You're not
21:02 [ ncl] [ cacahuatl] okay 100% troll now
21:02 [ ncl] wow
21:02 [ ncl] you dont say
21:02 [ greg] wgreenhouse: interpreting it as a license would kill it deader than as a contract
21:02 [ greg] licenses can be recinded at will, barring estoppel.
21:02 [ wgreenhouse] greg: I disagree; it's perfectly valid as a license. Busybox among others have litigated it quite successfully in US courts.
21:02 [ greg] you don't want it to be a license
21:03 [ cacahuatl] greg: Can we see your license to practise law and such, please?
21:03 [ greg] wgreenhouse: they've only scratched the surface, no one attacked the foundations.
21:03 [@ruds] Is this the same troll from yesterday?
21:03 [ cacahuatl] Yeah
21:03 [ wgreenhouse] greg: GPL3 is explicitly irrevocable. I'd rather see people move on to that
21:03 [ cacahuatl] Same troll
21:03 [ wgreenhouse] than the world decide that the GPL is not a license.
21:03 [ greg] wgreenhouse: I'm aware linux is under v2 of the GPL
21:03 [ greg] so don't try to pull that
21:03 [ greg] and no any later version clause.
21:04 [ virus] greg: ok wait so what are you trying to "advocate" for exactly give me your perfect senario
21:04 [ greg] Linux will never be relicensed due to the dead former contributors who's estates hold the rights now.
21:04 [ wgreenhouse] greg: Not "pulling" anything; I realize that about Linux. There probably would've been no grsec in the first place without that.
21:04 [ greg] wgreenhouse: please advide spengler to reverse course.
21:04 [ greg] *advise
21:05 [ cacahuatl] Or don't
21:05 [ wgreenhouse] greg: I have no sway over him
21:05 [ cacahuatl] You know, it's up to you
21:05 [@ruds] It is advised to ignore
21:05 [ greg] wgreenhouse: teach him about license vs contract.
21:05 [@ruds] Once he takes up the whole chat I will kick
21:05 [ wgreenhouse] greg: It's a license. It's not a contract. There's no consideration.
21:05 [ virus] yea greg: how exactly do you propose we do that?
21:05 [ greg] wgreenhouse: then it's revokable at will.
21:06 [ wgreenhouse] greg: Maybe so. Another reason to use GPL3 for all your future projects.
21:06 [ wgreenhouse] :)
21:06 [ wgreenhouse] You should anyway
21:06 [ greg] wgreenhouse: we do
21:06 [ greg] dual licensed v2 and v3
21:06 [ greg] :)
21:06 [ wgreenhouse] greg: good. you're covered then.
21:06 [ wgreenhouse] I don't see there being any benefit to giving up strict liability and the Berne Convention
21:07 [ greg] wgreenhouse: ill be back in abit, nice talking to you
21:07 [ wgreenhouse] greg: No, don't come back.
21:07 [ wgreenhouse] greg: Not until you've stopped advocating for something you don't understand and have no stake in.
21:07 [ virus] wow that was a crazy trainwreck of a discussion holy hell
21:07 [ greg] wgreenhouse: atleast you realise the precarious situation GPLv2 is in
21:08 [ xeb] I RIDED THE CHATS PONY AND IT POO EVERYWHERE!
21:08 [ virus] we all do at least as dev's that's y v3 came out
21:08 [ xeb] what's the craic but?
21:08 [ greg] and thus spengler's buisness plan of closing the stable patch of the derived work.
21:08 [ xeb] oh lol licensing
21:08 [ cacahuatl] troll pretending to be a lawyer
21:08 [ xeb] spender is butthurt because everyone's an idiot
21:08 [ xeb] and some of the idiots are also quite rude
21:08 [ xeb] and he's right on both counts
21:08 [ xeb] and linux doesn't deserve grsec
21:08 [@ruds] I would kick but you guys seem to be enjoying this conversation
21:08 [ xeb] and humans don't deserve nice things. film at eleven
21:08 [ xeb] shup ruds
21:08 [ greg] So you all see that wgreenhouse agrees with me on the points I've been making
21:08 [ ncl] ? YOU ARE AN IDIOT ?
21:09 [ virus] xeb: probably the truest thing said
21:09 [ greg] but still you don't understand it
21:09 [ cacahuatl] greg: You're still either a dull troll or a scammer
21:09 [@ruds] It seems this chat needs to calm down
21:09 -!- mode/#nottor [+m] by ruds
21:09 [ greg] GPLv2 being a license means spenglers permission to modify linux can be revoked at will by any rights holder
21:09 -!- #nottor Cannot send to channel