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

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
39 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

aconcernedfossdev
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 under disallows the
imposition of additional terms. The making of an understanding that the
derivative work must not be redistributed (lest there be retaliation) is
the imposition of an additional term. The communication of this threat
is the moment that GRSecurity violates the license grant. Thence-forth
modification, making of derivative works, and distribution of such is a
violation of the Copyright statute. The concoction of the transparent
scheme shows that it is a willful violation, one taken in full knowledge
by GRSecurity of the intention of the original grantor.


Why does not one person here care?
Just want to forget what holds Libre Software together and go the way of
BSD?


(Note: last month the GRSecurity Team removed the public testing patch,
they prevent the distribution of the patch by paying customers by a
threat of no further business: they have concocted a transparent scheme
to make sure the intention of the Linux rights-holders (thousands of
entities) are defeated) (This is unlike RedHat who do distribute their
patches in the form the rights-holders prefer: source code, RedHat does
not attempt to stymie the redistribution of their derivative works,
GRSecurity does.).

------
( This song is about GRSecurity's violation of Linus et al's
copyright**:
youtube.com/watch?v=CYnhI3wUej8
(A Boat Sails Away 2016 17) )

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Liam Proven
On 15 June 2017 at 17:34,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating
> the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?


Firstly, this is not the place.

Second, all you have posted is a rant. I don't know who Brad Spengler
is, nor GR Security, nor of what he or they may or may not be doing.

So instead of ranting, write a blog post, *explain* briefly what you
feel that they are doing, with evidence and citations. Then, post it
on Hacker News, Slashdot, places like that. Get a discussion going.

Meanwhile, please keep your anonymous ad-hom attacks off support or
development mailing lists. They are not welcome here.

--
Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: [hidden email] • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: [hidden email]
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

aconcernedfossdev
In reply to this post by aconcernedfossdev
It's an obvious blatant violation. He is not allowed to add additional
terms, but being a "clever" programmer it seems that he has decided that
because the additional term that he (and seemingly PaxTeam) has imposed
is not written within the four corners of license grant document but
instead is communicated in some other way that """""doesn't make it an
additional term""""" and he has """"cleverly circumvented the linux
copyright terms"""", which obviously is not the case but other random
programmers will argue and swear it's fine till hell freezes over and
get very angry when someone with a legal background informs them
otherwise.

I think many people are not aware of the violation because it's only
been a month since GRSecurity pulled the sourcecode: it was almost a
moot point before then with no real damage. Such is no-longer the case.

On 2017-06-15 15:43, Greg KH wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000, [hidden email]
> 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 redistribution.
>>
>> The license grant the Linux Kernel is distributed under disallows the
>> imposition of additional terms. The making of an understanding that
>> the
>> derivative work must not be redistributed (lest there be retaliation)
>> is the
>> imposition of an additional term. The communication of this threat is
>> the
>> moment that GRSecurity violates the license grant. Thence-forth
>> modification, making of derivative works, and distribution of such is
>> a
>> violation of the Copyright statute. The concoction of the transparent
>> scheme
>> shows that it is a willful violation, one taken in full knowledge by
>> GRSecurity of the intention of the original grantor.
>
> If you feel that what they are doing is somehow violating your
> copyright
> on the Linux kernel, then you have the right to take legal action if
> you
> so desire.  To tell others what to do, however, is not something that
> usually gets you very far in the world.
>
> Best of luck!
>
> greg k-h

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

aconcernedfossdev
Also Brad Spengler has been threatening legal action against an openwall
developer back-porting features of Brad's wholly, non-standalone,
derivative work.


He also calls GRSecurity an "Original Work", which it is not (see the
Anime Subs cases for the court's opinion) (GRSecurity is such a
non-standalone derivative work, so the Linux Licensing terms absolutely
do apply (it's a patch that snakes through the whole of the Linux Kernel
source tree, touching everything like a vine).

Here's a quick rundown:
-------------------------------------

GRSecurity goes full commercial, no more free testing patches, threatens
programmer trying to port.

(*1) https://lwn.net/Articles/723169/
(*2)
https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/software/general-linux-open-source/948623-grsecurity-kernel-patches-will-no-longer-be-free-to-the-public?page=1
(*3)
https://www.embedded-linux.de/18-news/886-grsecurity-nicht-mehr-kostenlos-verfuegbar
(*4)
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/grsecurity_linux_kernel_freeloaders/

GRSecurity removes public testing patch - goes full commercial.

(*5) 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"


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.
(See: ****)

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

(*6) http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/06/03/14

> Guys, this is your *last warning*.  This stops *now* or I'm sending
> lawyers
> after you and the companies paying you to plagiarize our work and
> violate
> our *registered* copyright (which for the record entitles us to
> punitive
> damages which now are very easily provable).  It's time to get serious
> about attribution -- what you are doing is completely unacceptable.  
> I'm
> already in contact with lawyers to prepare for the next time this
> happens.
> If any of this plagiarized and misattributed code actually made it into
> the Linux kernel, you'd all be in a world of pain.

Here Brad Spengler threatens a copyright infringement lawsuit regarding
his non-original wholly-derivative work.
(An original work stands alone). This while he threatens those paying
customers who might redistribute the work (see: **** below).



Note: Copyright licenses (like any license to use the property of
another (copyright is freely alienable in the same way real property
is)) 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).

Note2: GrSecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel, it is
non-seperable: it wholly relies on the linux kernel source code to work.
Courts in both the US and Germany have reaffirmed that if a work based
on another work cannot stand alone it is clearly a derivative work.
(See the Anime Subtitles case from a few years ago) (See page 6 of the
phoronix discussion at *2 for a review)

Note3:The linux kernel is not under joint copyright, it is simply a
collection of derivative work upon derivative work.

A simple 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.

Additionally copyright violation claims can be filed as Brad Spengler
has reportedly attempted to frustrate the purpose of the agreement that
allows him to modify the linux kernel in the first place; placing
additional restrictions to prevent redistribution of the sourcecode (a
court would not be fooled by such a scheme).

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


Other snippets from (*5) include Mr Spengler's unhappiness with the
publication of his scheme and RMS's opinion of it:
> ... It has been nearly 4 months now and despite repeated follow-ups, I
> still
> haven't received anything back more than an automated reply. Likewise
> regarding some supposed claims by RMS which were published last year by
> internet troll mikeeusa -- I have been trying since June 3rd of last
> year to get any response from him, but have been unable to. So when you
> ...

RMS' opinion can be seen here:
(*7) https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/06/msg00020.html

> Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under
> version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
> Richard Stallman  (May 31 2016 10:27 PM)
>
> [[[ 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. ]]]
>
> If I understand right, this is a matter of GPL 2 on the Linux patches.
> Is that right?  If so, I think GRsecurity is violating the GPL on
> Linux.
>
> --
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
> Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
> Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.


(****)
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_linux_developer_steals_page_from_
andi
"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_15_years_of_research_grsecuritys_rap_is_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







On 2017-06-15 15:51, [hidden email] wrote:

> It's an obvious blatant violation. He is not allowed to add additional
> terms, but being a "clever" programmer it seems that he has decided
> that because the additional term that he (and seemingly PaxTeam) has
> imposed is not written within the four corners of license grant
> document but instead is communicated in some other way that
> """""doesn't make it an additional term""""" and he has """"cleverly
> circumvented the linux copyright terms"""", which obviously is not the
> case but other random programmers will argue and swear it's fine till
> hell freezes over and get very angry when someone with a legal
> background informs them otherwise.
>
> I think many people are not aware of the violation because it's only
> been a month since GRSecurity pulled the sourcecode: it was almost a
> moot point before then with no real damage. Such is no-longer the
> case.
>
> On 2017-06-15 15:43, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000, [hidden email]
>> 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 redistribution.
>>>
>>> The license grant the Linux Kernel is distributed under disallows the
>>> imposition of additional terms. The making of an understanding that
>>> the
>>> derivative work must not be redistributed (lest there be retaliation)
>>> is the
>>> imposition of an additional term. The communication of this threat is
>>> the
>>> moment that GRSecurity violates the license grant. Thence-forth
>>> modification, making of derivative works, and distribution of such is
>>> a
>>> violation of the Copyright statute. The concoction of the transparent
>>> scheme
>>> shows that it is a willful violation, one taken in full knowledge by
>>> GRSecurity of the intention of the original grantor.
>>
>> If you feel that what they are doing is somehow violating your
>> copyright
>> on the Linux kernel, then you have the right to take legal action if
>> you
>> so desire.  To tell others what to do, however, is not something that
>> usually gets you very far in the world.
>>
>> Best of luck!
>>
>> greg k-h

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

W Stacy Lockwood
In reply to this post by aconcernedfossdev
Did you not see Liam's reply, or do you just want to add nothing but noise to this list?

On Jun 15, 2017 10:51, <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's an obvious blatant violation. He is not allowed to add additional terms, but being a "clever" programmer it seems that he has decided that because the additional term that he (and seemingly PaxTeam) has imposed is not written within the four corners of license grant document but instead is communicated in some other way that """""doesn't make it an additional term""""" and he has """"cleverly circumvented the linux copyright terms"""", which obviously is not the case but other random programmers will argue and swear it's fine till hell freezes over and get very angry when someone with a legal background informs them otherwise.

I think many people are not aware of the violation because it's only been a month since GRSecurity pulled the sourcecode: it was almost a moot point before then with no real damage. Such is no-longer the case.

On 2017-06-15 15:43, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000, [hidden email] 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 redistribution.

The license grant the Linux Kernel is distributed under disallows the
imposition of additional terms. The making of an understanding that the
derivative work must not be redistributed (lest there be retaliation) is the
imposition of an additional term. The communication of this threat is the
moment that GRSecurity violates the license grant. Thence-forth
modification, making of derivative works, and distribution of such is a
violation of the Copyright statute. The concoction of the transparent scheme
shows that it is a willful violation, one taken in full knowledge by
GRSecurity of the intention of the original grantor.

If you feel that what they are doing is somehow violating your copyright
on the Linux kernel, then you have the right to take legal action if you
so desire.  To tell others what to do, however, is not something that
usually gets you very far in the world.

Best of luck!

greg k-h

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

aconcernedfossdev
In reply to this post by aconcernedfossdev
If Mr Spengler would like to market a non-re-distributable hardened
kernel, he can write his own kernel from scratch. Currently he is
marketing a non-redistributable derivative work of the Linux Kernel. He
prevents customers of his from redistributing the derivative work by
threatening a non-renewal of whatever contract exists between his
company and the customers. This scheme has been successful. That is
certainly the imposition of an additional term, which the Linux
licensing terms forbid, when he imposed that additional term on his
clients he violated the licensing terms and has no right to even modify
the linux kernel from that point forward.

On 2017-06-15 15:53, Casey Schaufler wrote:

> On 6/15/2017 8:34 AM, [hidden email] 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 redistribution.
>>
>> The license grant the Linux Kernel is distributed under disallows the
>> imposition of additional terms. The making of an understanding that
>> the derivative work must not be redistributed (lest there be
>> retaliation) is the imposition of an additional term. The
>> communication of this threat is the moment that GRSecurity violates
>> the license grant. Thence-forth modification, making of derivative
>> works, and distribution of such is a violation of the Copyright
>> statute. The concoction of the transparent scheme shows that it is a
>> willful violation, one taken in full knowledge by GRSecurity of the
>> intention of the original grantor.
>>
>>
>> Why does not one person here care?
>
> Email lists are never* the correct mechanism for the resolution
> of legal issues. If someone from these email lists is working
> to address a legal issue you are extremely unlikely to see any
> evidence of it on an email list.
>
>
> ---
> * I am not a lawyer. Do not construe this as legal advice.
>
>> Just want to forget what holds Libre Software together and go the way
>> of BSD?
>>
>>
>> (Note: last month the GRSecurity Team removed the public testing
>> patch,
>> they prevent the distribution of the patch by paying customers by a
>> threat of no further business: they have concocted a transparent
>> scheme
>> to make sure the intention of the Linux rights-holders (thousands of
>> entities) are defeated) (This is unlike RedHat who do distribute their
>> patches in the form the rights-holders prefer: source code, RedHat
>> does
>> not attempt to stymie the redistribution of their derivative works,
>> GRSecurity does.).
>>
>> ------
>> ( This song is about GRSecurity's violation of Linus et al's
>> copyright**:
>> youtube.com/watch?v=CYnhI3wUej8
>> (A Boat Sails Away 2016 17) )
>>

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Wade Smart-2
Whoever this person is, not only is s/he spamming multiple lists here,
there are several over lists where Im getting the same emails but
from a different address. Clearly not listing to any responses, just
a spammer with an agenda.


--
Registered Linux User: #480675
Registered Linux Machine: #408606
Linux since June 2005

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Jeff Lane-2
In reply to this post by W Stacy Lockwood
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, W Stacy Lockwood <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Did you not see Liam's reply, or do you just want to add nothing but noise
> to this list?

Given the repeated spamming the list, the cross posting, and replying
on this list to response external to this list (oh the joys of
crossposting), can we just chuck this account into a moderation bin
and let him/her rant into a bit bucket?

I'm on both the Ubuntu lists, so I'm getting these double... yes, I
can filter this myself, but that doesn't help the larger group...

> On Jun 15, 2017 10:51, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> It's an obvious blatant violation. He is not allowed to add additional
>> terms, but being a "clever" programmer it seems that he has decided that
>> because the additional term that he (and seemingly PaxTeam) has imposed is
>> not written within the four corners of license grant document but instead is
>> communicated in some other way that """""doesn't make it an additional
>> term""""" and he has """"cleverly circumvented the linux copyright
>> terms"""", which obviously is not the case but other random programmers will
>> argue and swear it's fine till hell freezes over and get very angry when
>> someone with a legal background informs them otherwise.
>>
>> I think many people are not aware of the violation because it's only been
>> a month since GRSecurity pulled the sourcecode: it was almost a moot point
>> before then with no real damage. Such is no-longer the case.
>>
>> On 2017-06-15 15:43, Greg KH wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000, [hidden email]
>>> 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 redistribution.
>>>>
>>>> The license grant the Linux Kernel is distributed under disallows the
>>>> imposition of additional terms. The making of an understanding that the
>>>> derivative work must not be redistributed (lest there be retaliation) is
>>>> the
>>>> imposition of an additional term. The communication of this threat is
>>>> the
>>>> moment that GRSecurity violates the license grant. Thence-forth
>>>> modification, making of derivative works, and distribution of such is a
>>>> violation of the Copyright statute. The concoction of the transparent
>>>> scheme
>>>> shows that it is a willful violation, one taken in full knowledge by
>>>> GRSecurity of the intention of the original grantor.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you feel that what they are doing is somehow violating your copyright
>>> on the Linux kernel, then you have the right to take legal action if you
>>> so desire.  To tell others what to do, however, is not something that
>>> usually gets you very far in the world.
>>>
>>> Best of luck!
>>>
>>> greg k-h
>>
>>
>> --
>> ubuntu-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

aconcernedfossdev
In reply to this post by aconcernedfossdev
> their customer restriction "you can redistribute
this code, but if you do we will on longer provide you
with updates" does not change that.

That is the imposition of an additional term, a court would not be
amused by the programmers claim it's fine because he didn't ink it into
the copy of the license he distributed the code with. The court would
not be blind to the effect and the intention. The law has dealt with
transparent schemes like this for hundreds of years, and within
copyright for about a century (but much longer within contract law).

There should be a joint action.

On 2017-06-15 15:58, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 15:34 +0000, [hidden email] 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 redistribution.
>
> Right now there are a few million systems that use
> grsecurity, and over a billion systems that are not
> protected by grsecurity functionality.
>
> Removing grsecurity from the community has been an
> impetus to finally get the grsecurity functionality
> into the upstream kernel, where it can benefit the
> billion systems that do not have it today.
>
>> Why does not one person here care?
>> Just want to forget what holds Libre Software together and go the way
>> of BSD?
>
> What holds Linux together is community. The license
> is one of many aspects to that community, but far
> from the only one.
>
> GRSecurity has been outside of the community for years,
> and their customer restriction "you can redistribute
> this code, but if you do we will on longer provide you
> with updates" does not change that.
>
> Having the remaining developers who are interested in
> hardening work on getting more functionality upstream,
> now that the grsecurity patches are no longer available
> to non-customers, is likely a good thing for everybody.
>
> Want to help out?  Join us in ##linux-hardening on
> irc.freenode.net.
>
> kind regards,
>
> Rik van Riel

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

aconcernedfossdev
In reply to this post by Jeff Lane-2
Oh exaulted one, I am so sorry to have wasted your inbox space.
You see we all live for you, exalted aryan queen!

Some of us care about the legal aspects of "copyleft".
Without enforcement there is no reason for anyone to contribute to
linux.
There is a simple trade: we trade our labor for your labor.


On 2017-06-15 16:05, J wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, W Stacy Lockwood
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Did you not see Liam's reply, or do you just want to add nothing but
>> noise
>> to this list?
>
> Given the repeated spamming the list, the cross posting, and replying
> on this list to response external to this list (oh the joys of
> crossposting), can we just chuck this account into a moderation bin
> and let him/her rant into a bit bucket?
>
> I'm on both the Ubuntu lists, so I'm getting these double... yes, I
> can filter this myself, but that doesn't help the larger group...
>
>> On Jun 15, 2017 10:51, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's an obvious blatant violation. He is not allowed to add
>>> additional
>>> terms, but being a "clever" programmer it seems that he has decided
>>> that
>>> because the additional term that he (and seemingly PaxTeam) has
>>> imposed is
>>> not written within the four corners of license grant document but
>>> instead is
>>> communicated in some other way that """""doesn't make it an
>>> additional
>>> term""""" and he has """"cleverly circumvented the linux copyright
>>> terms"""", which obviously is not the case but other random
>>> programmers will
>>> argue and swear it's fine till hell freezes over and get very angry
>>> when
>>> someone with a legal background informs them otherwise.
>>>
>>> I think many people are not aware of the violation because it's only
>>> been
>>> a month since GRSecurity pulled the sourcecode: it was almost a moot
>>> point
>>> before then with no real damage. Such is no-longer the case.
>>>
>>> On 2017-06-15 15:43, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000,
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> 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 redistribution.
>>>>>
>>>>> The license grant the Linux Kernel is distributed under disallows
>>>>> the
>>>>> imposition of additional terms. The making of an understanding that
>>>>> the
>>>>> derivative work must not be redistributed (lest there be
>>>>> retaliation) is
>>>>> the
>>>>> imposition of an additional term. The communication of this threat
>>>>> is
>>>>> the
>>>>> moment that GRSecurity violates the license grant. Thence-forth
>>>>> modification, making of derivative works, and distribution of such
>>>>> is a
>>>>> violation of the Copyright statute. The concoction of the
>>>>> transparent
>>>>> scheme
>>>>> shows that it is a willful violation, one taken in full knowledge
>>>>> by
>>>>> GRSecurity of the intention of the original grantor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you feel that what they are doing is somehow violating your
>>>> copyright
>>>> on the Linux kernel, then you have the right to take legal action if
>>>> you
>>>> so desire.  To tell others what to do, however, is not something
>>>> that
>>>> usually gets you very far in the world.
>>>>
>>>> Best of luck!
>>>>
>>>> greg k-h
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ubuntu-users mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>>
>>
>> --
>> ubuntu-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>>

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

aconcernedfossdev
In reply to this post by Jeff Lane-2
Nice vally-girl yawn.

Because you are not interested in legal matters vis a vis GRSecurity, no
one should be and the discussion should be censored

You're a real piece of work, you know.
A real piece of work.

So I ask the question again: 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 (seemingly aswell as PaxTeam) 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 under disallows the
imposition of additional terms. The making of an understanding that the
derivative work must not be redistributed (lest there be retaliation) is
the imposition of an additional term. The communication of this threat
is the moment that GRSecurity violates the license grant. Thence-forth
modification, making of derivative works, and distribution of such is a
violation of the Copyright statute. The concoction of the transparent
scheme shows that it is a willful violation, one taken in full knowledge
by GRSecurity of the intention of the original grantor.


Why does not one person here care?
Just want to forget what holds Libre Software together and go the way of
BSD?


(Note: last month the GRSecurity Team removed the public testing patch,
they prevent the distribution of the patch by paying customers by a
threat of no further business: they have concocted a transparent scheme
to make sure the intention of the Linux rights-holders (thousands of
entities) are defeated) (This is unlike RedHat who do distribute their
patches in the form the rights-holders prefer: source code, RedHat does
not attempt to stymie the redistribution of their derivative works,
GRSecurity does.).

------
( This song is about GRSecurity's violation of Linus et al's
copyright**:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYnhI3wUej8
(A Boat Sails Away 2016 17) )

On 2017-06-15 16:05, J wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, W Stacy Lockwood
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Did you not see Liam's reply, or do you just want to add nothing but
>> noise
>> to this list?
>
> Given the repeated spamming the list, the cross posting, and replying
> on this list to response external to this list (oh the joys of
> crossposting), can we just chuck this account into a moderation bin
> and let him/her rant into a bit bucket?
>
> I'm on both the Ubuntu lists, so I'm getting these double... yes, I
> can filter this myself, but that doesn't help the larger group...
>
>> On Jun 15, 2017 10:51, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's an obvious blatant violation. He is not allowed to add
>>> additional
>>> terms, but being a "clever" programmer it seems that he has decided
>>> that
>>> because the additional term that he (and seemingly PaxTeam) has
>>> imposed is
>>> not written within the four corners of license grant document but
>>> instead is
>>> communicated in some other way that """""doesn't make it an
>>> additional
>>> term""""" and he has """"cleverly circumvented the linux copyright
>>> terms"""", which obviously is not the case but other random
>>> programmers will
>>> argue and swear it's fine till hell freezes over and get very angry
>>> when
>>> someone with a legal background informs them otherwise.
>>>
>>> I think many people are not aware of the violation because it's only
>>> been
>>> a month since GRSecurity pulled the sourcecode: it was almost a moot
>>> point
>>> before then with no real damage. Such is no-longer the case.
>>>
>>> On 2017-06-15 15:43, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:34:06PM +0000,
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> 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 redistribution.
>>>>>
>>>>> The license grant the Linux Kernel is distributed under disallows
>>>>> the
>>>>> imposition of additional terms. The making of an understanding that
>>>>> the
>>>>> derivative work must not be redistributed (lest there be
>>>>> retaliation) is
>>>>> the
>>>>> imposition of an additional term. The communication of this threat
>>>>> is
>>>>> the
>>>>> moment that GRSecurity violates the license grant. Thence-forth
>>>>> modification, making of derivative works, and distribution of such
>>>>> is a
>>>>> violation of the Copyright statute. The concoction of the
>>>>> transparent
>>>>> scheme
>>>>> shows that it is a willful violation, one taken in full knowledge
>>>>> by
>>>>> GRSecurity of the intention of the original grantor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you feel that what they are doing is somehow violating your
>>>> copyright
>>>> on the Linux kernel, then you have the right to take legal action if
>>>> you
>>>> so desire.  To tell others what to do, however, is not something
>>>> that
>>>> usually gets you very far in the world.
>>>>
>>>> Best of luck!
>>>>
>>>> greg k-h
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ubuntu-users mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>>
>>
>> --
>> ubuntu-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>>

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Ralf Mardorf-2
In reply to this post by aconcernedfossdev
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:50:45 +0200, Liam Proven wrote:
>Meanwhile, please keep your anonymous ad-hom attacks off support or
>development mailing lists. They are not welcome here.

Hi,

they are less appropiate on users mailing list that aren't for general
discussions, so theoretically the better place would be Ubuntu
devel discuss.
      ^^^^^^^

>On 2017-06-15 15:43, Greg KH wrote:
>> If you feel that what they are doing is somehow violating your
>> copyright on the Linux kernel, then you have the right to take legal
>> action if you so desire.  To tell others what to do, however, is not
>> something that usually gets you very far in the world.

The above reply says it all.

The discontinued GRSecurity issue isn't new, for example take a look at
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2017-April/043604.html .
New to me is just somebody complaining about a possible legal issue.

IIRC on Ubuntu AppArmor is the default, it's a MAC implementation.

I neither know if AppArmor or something similar could be considered a
replacement for GRSecurity, nor if there is a legal issue with
discontinuing GRSecurity for free, but I didn't heard of a legal issue
before.

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:34:06 +0000, [hidden email] wrote:
>Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly
>violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

I don't care at all about GRSecurity, so why should I care about a
possible and very unlikely legal issue? I suspect that if there would be
a legal issue, there already would have been many concerns on other
mailing lists. I didn't notice such concerns.

Cross-posting, top posting and the tone of voice are not as good as
providing links to serious concerns.

Regards,
Ralf


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

aconcernedfossdev
In reply to this post by Wade Smart-2
I'm listening to your responses, and responding myself.

You call me a spammer.

Which is a libel.

Would you like me to file over it?

On 2017-06-15 16:05, Wade Smart wrote:

> Whoever this person is, not only is s/he spamming multiple lists here,
> there are several over lists where Im getting the same emails but
> from a different address. Clearly not listing to any responses, just
> a spammer with an agenda.
>
>
> --
> Registered Linux User: #480675
> Registered Linux Machine: #408606
> Linux since June 2005

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

aconcernedfossdev
In reply to this post by Ralf Mardorf-2
 From a legal standpoint the pulling of the public patches is
signifigant.

Before then there was a cause of action due to the imposition of an
additional term, but
since the rightsholders could still access the derivative work it may
have been a moot point to them.

Now that additional no-redistribution term imposition DOES affect the
rights-holders.

Big development.

On 2017-06-15 16:25, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:50:45 +0200, Liam Proven wrote:
>> Meanwhile, please keep your anonymous ad-hom attacks off support or
>> development mailing lists. They are not welcome here.
>
> Hi,
>
> they are less appropiate on users mailing list that aren't for general
> discussions, so theoretically the better place would be Ubuntu
> devel discuss.
>       ^^^^^^^
>
>> On 2017-06-15 15:43, Greg KH wrote:
>>> If you feel that what they are doing is somehow violating your
>>> copyright on the Linux kernel, then you have the right to take legal
>>> action if you so desire.  To tell others what to do, however, is not
>>> something that usually gets you very far in the world.
>
> The above reply says it all.
>
> The discontinued GRSecurity issue isn't new, for example take a look at
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2017-April/043604.html 
> .
> New to me is just somebody complaining about a possible legal issue.
>
> IIRC on Ubuntu AppArmor is the default, it's a MAC implementation.
>
> I neither know if AppArmor or something similar could be considered a
> replacement for GRSecurity, nor if there is a legal issue with
> discontinuing GRSecurity for free, but I didn't heard of a legal issue
> before.
>
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:34:06 +0000, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly
>> violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?
>
> I don't care at all about GRSecurity, so why should I care about a
> possible and very unlikely legal issue? I suspect that if there would
> be
> a legal issue, there already would have been many concerns on other
> mailing lists. I didn't notice such concerns.
>
> Cross-posting, top posting and the tone of voice are not as good as
> providing links to serious concerns.
>
> Regards,
> Ralf

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Tom H-4
In reply to this post by aconcernedfossdev
Why should we care?

And more importantly, why should we care within the context of ubuntu-users@?!

Please take this elsewhere.



On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:34 AM,  <[hidden email]> 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 redistribution.
>
> The license grant the Linux Kernel is distributed under disallows the
> imposition of additional terms. The making of an understanding that the
> derivative work must not be redistributed (lest there be retaliation) is the
> imposition of an additional term. The communication of this threat is the
> moment that GRSecurity violates the license grant. Thence-forth
> modification, making of derivative works, and distribution of such is a
> violation of the Copyright statute. The concoction of the transparent scheme
> shows that it is a willful violation, one taken in full knowledge by
> GRSecurity of the intention of the original grantor.
>
>
> Why does not one person here care?
> Just want to forget what holds Libre Software together and go the way of
> BSD?
>
>
> (Note: last month the GRSecurity Team removed the public testing patch,
> they prevent the distribution of the patch by paying customers by a
> threat of no further business: they have concocted a transparent scheme
> to make sure the intention of the Linux rights-holders (thousands of
> entities) are defeated) (This is unlike RedHat who do distribute their
> patches in the form the rights-holders prefer: source code, RedHat does
> not attempt to stymie the redistribution of their derivative works,
> GRSecurity does.).
>
> ------
> ( This song is about GRSecurity's violation of Linus et al's copyright**:
> youtube.com/watch?v=CYnhI3wUej8
> (A Boat Sails Away 2016 17) )
>
> --
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Ralf Mardorf-2
In reply to this post by aconcernedfossdev
Thank you,

I already got duplicates of many mails via Ubuntu users and Ubuntu
devel discuss and now you additionally replied to me directly. Let
alone that I get cross posted replies to kernel hardening, where I'm
not subscribed, so that I even can't follow the thread from kernel
hardening, without reading the bottom of your top posted mails.

If you wish that others and I don't ban your mails, consider to become
more discreet, IOW take a rest and wait if somebody is interested in
your concerns, then reply with shorter mails and without discrediting
this Mr. Spengler by irrelevant quotes. Stay on topic.

Regards,
Ralf



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

aconcernedfossdev
In reply to this post by Tom H-4
Because some of you on this list may very well be linux kernel
contributors and this is a fairly new development (month old) of a
developing issue (1 year old). It's crossed the Rubicon now though and
it's time for a joint filing. It is time to _SUE_.


On 2017-06-15 16:45, Tom H wrote:

> Why should we care?
>
> And more importantly, why should we care within the context of
> ubuntu-users@?!
>
> Please take this elsewhere.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:34 AM,  <[hidden email]>
> 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 redistribution.
>>
>> The license grant the Linux Kernel is distributed under disallows the
>> imposition of additional terms. The making of an understanding that
>> the
>> derivative work must not be redistributed (lest there be retaliation)
>> is the
>> imposition of an additional term. The communication of this threat is
>> the
>> moment that GRSecurity violates the license grant. Thence-forth
>> modification, making of derivative works, and distribution of such is
>> a
>> violation of the Copyright statute. The concoction of the transparent
>> scheme
>> shows that it is a willful violation, one taken in full knowledge by
>> GRSecurity of the intention of the original grantor.
>>
>>
>> Why does not one person here care?
>> Just want to forget what holds Libre Software together and go the way
>> of
>> BSD?
>>
>>
>> (Note: last month the GRSecurity Team removed the public testing
>> patch,
>> they prevent the distribution of the patch by paying customers by a
>> threat of no further business: they have concocted a transparent
>> scheme
>> to make sure the intention of the Linux rights-holders (thousands of
>> entities) are defeated) (This is unlike RedHat who do distribute their
>> patches in the form the rights-holders prefer: source code, RedHat
>> does
>> not attempt to stymie the redistribution of their derivative works,
>> GRSecurity does.).
>>
>> ------
>> ( This song is about GRSecurity's violation of Linus et al's
>> copyright**:
>> youtube.com/watch?v=CYnhI3wUej8
>> (A Boat Sails Away 2016 17) )
>>
>> --
>> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Tom H-4
In reply to this post by Ralf Mardorf-2
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Ralf Mardorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> they are less appropiate on users mailing list that aren't for general
> discussions, so theoretically the better place would be Ubuntu
> devel discuss.
>       ^^^^^^^

The OP's already spamming ubuntu-devel-discuss@. AFAIK, Ubuntu doesn't
package anything related to grsecurity so this nonsense doesn't belong
on any Ubuntu list. It's pure (anonymous) spam :(

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

aconcernedfossdev
It is very appropriate for these lists as these lists likely contain
linux kernel contributors.

Even if you do not use GRSecurity or PAX, your copyright is being
violated by them do to their addition of a forbidden additional term.

It is not spam and you are libeling me as a spammer.
(Publishing a derogatory false statement to a third party)
Do you want me to file a libel claim against you?

Would you like me to do that?


On 2017-06-15 16:49, Tom H wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Ralf Mardorf <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> they are less appropiate on users mailing list that aren't for general
>> discussions, so theoretically the better place would be Ubuntu
>> devel discuss.
>>       ^^^^^^^
>
> The OP's already spamming ubuntu-devel-discuss@. AFAIK, Ubuntu doesn't
> package anything related to grsecurity so this nonsense doesn't belong
> on any Ubuntu list. It's pure (anonymous) spam :(

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Tom H-4
In reply to this post by aconcernedfossdev
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:49 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2017-06-15 16:45, Tom H wrote:
>>
>> Why should we care?
>>
>> And more importantly, why should we care within the context of
>> ubuntu-users@?!
>>
>> Please take this elsewhere.
>
> Because some of you on this list may very well be linux kernel contributors
> and this is a fairly new development (month old) of a developing issue (1
> year old). It's crossed the Rubicon now though and it's time for a joint
> filing. It is time to _SUE_.

People who contribute to linux are on lkml and related lists.

Go ahead and use but please leave this list to Ubuntu support and
ubuntu-devel-discuss@ to Ubuntu development!

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
12
Loading...