* Re: Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)?
[not found] ` <E1iRgHg-0007e0-Gd@fencepost.gnu.org>
@ 2019-11-04 17:56 ` nipponmail
2019-11-04 17:58 ` Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)? - BP and EFF have addressed nipponmail
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: nipponmail @ 2019-11-04 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
You are incorrect. GPL version 2 section 6 states that one shall not add
additional restrictions between the agreement between the licensee and
further licensees. It governs that relationship vis-a-vis the protected
Work.
GrSecurity has, indeed, stipulated an additional restrictive term.
From: You may distribute derivative works freely.
GrSecurity has forced customers to agree to: We shall not distribute the
(non-separable) derivative work EXCEPT to our own customers (when
required).
That is clearly an additional restrictive term.
Yes, I am a lawyer. A court would not be "tricked" by GrSecurity putting
it's additional restrictive term in a separate writing. The license is
instructions about what you are allowed to do with Copyright Holder's
work; He EXPLICITLY forbade additional restrictive terms.
GrSecurity does not have a pre-existing legal right to create
non-separable derivative works at all. The default rights are: nothing
(all rights reservered).
On 2019-11-04 17:36, ams@gnu.org wrote:
> One is not under obligation to guarantee that new versions are
> distributed to someone, which also means obligations can be terminated
> for any reason. So while grsecurity might not be doing the morally
> and ethically right thing, I do not think they are violating the GNU
> GPL. You're still free to redistribute the patches, but grsecurity
> isn't under obligation to give you future updates.
>
> Their agreement text is located at
> https://grsecurity.net/agree/agreement_faq
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)? - BP and EFF have addressed
[not found] ` <E1iRgHg-0007e0-Gd@fencepost.gnu.org>
2019-11-04 17:56 ` Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)? nipponmail
@ 2019-11-04 17:58 ` nipponmail
2019-11-04 18:20 ` Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)? - He is violating, but you can also rescind the license nipponmail
[not found] ` <2fbd35b601c740b3cf88b73df7a2c123@firemail.cc>
3 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: nipponmail @ 2019-11-04 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: ruben, mrbrklyn
Bruce Perens and the EFF have addressed this, it is indeed a violation
to add an additional restrictive term such as that: they are threatening
a penalty, using a negative covenant, if the customer utilizes the
permissions granted to him (and GrSecurity) by the Copyright holder of
the original Work. GrSecurity does not have an independent legal right
to create non-separable derivative works _at_all_, they only have
permission to do so IF abiding by the terms the Copyright holder set
regarding HIS Work: which are NO additional restrictive terms. Here
GrSecurity HAS added an additional restrictive term: NO free
redistribution of the derivative work: and they enforce this via
penalty:
perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/
Page 10 onward has discussion on the copyright issue aswell:
perens.com/static/OSS_Spenger_v_Perens/0_2018cv15189/docs1/pdf/18.pdf
(And yes, IAAL)
On 2019-11-04 17:36, ams@gnu.org wrote:
> One is not under obligation to guarantee that new versions are
> distributed to someone, which also means obligations can be terminated
> for any reason. So while grsecurity might not be doing the morally
> and ethically right thing, I do not think they are violating the GNU
> GPL. You're still free to redistribute the patches, but grsecurity
> isn't under obligation to give you future updates.
>
> Their agreement text is located at
> https://grsecurity.net/agree/agreement_faq
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)? - He is violating, but you can also rescind the license
[not found] ` <E1iRgHg-0007e0-Gd@fencepost.gnu.org>
2019-11-04 17:56 ` Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)? nipponmail
2019-11-04 17:58 ` Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)? - BP and EFF have addressed nipponmail
@ 2019-11-04 18:20 ` nipponmail
[not found] ` <2fbd35b601c740b3cf88b73df7a2c123@firemail.cc>
3 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: nipponmail @ 2019-11-04 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: ruben, mrbrklyn
You do know, correct?, that the Copyright holder can simply rescind the
license if he is displeased with the way the licensee is behaving -
since the license is not supported by a contract.
The licensee would then rush to the Federal Court in his district to
seek a declaratory judgement regarding his rights, and then you're in a
diversity and federal-question suit.
But that is an option where the licensee paid no consideration for the
non-exclusive licensee grant (and no: obeying a pre-existing legal duty
is not sufficient for consideration)
I would like to note that in the Kasner(sp)? decision in the 9th circuit
the uneducated like to bandy about; the Artistic License was found NOT
to be a contract but a simple copyright license.
Also in the lower-court (California) Artifex decision the court didn't
even identify the "GPL" correctly, conflating it with the
offer-to-do-paying-bushiness preliminary writing (pay us, or accept the
GPL), but the court then allowed the Copyright holder to choose which
theory to go ahead with: Contract damages for the price of the
proprietary license OR pure Federal Copyright damages under the GPL
(because the GPL is not a contract: it's only a license. If the court
found it to be a contract it would limit the recovery to contract
damages under state law: which is WHY in Kasner the violator wanted the
Artistic license to be deemed a contract: damages of 0 (free))
However, GrSecurity is violating the GPL so you can just sue for
Copyright damages off the bat (as my other 2 posts quickly explain, I
haven't repeated the arguments here).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)?
[not found] ` <87ftj3gx9h.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
@ 2019-11-05 0:37 ` nipponmail
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: nipponmail @ 2019-11-05 0:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: ruben, mrbrklyn
It does not matter how common this way of doing buisness is.
It is still a blatant violation of the Copyright holders terms.
The Copyright holder has allowed GrSecurity to do something they, by
default, have no right to do (create and distribute [non-seperable]
derivative works), ONLY if they follow the Copyright holder's
directives.
The Copyright holder has stipulated that each distributee has the
permission to FREELY create derivative works based on the work and
FREELY distribute said original work and said derivative works, but that
they ONLY have this permission IF they also extend those rights to
down-the-line-distributees AND they DO NOT add ANY additional
_RESTRICTIONS_ on that right.
If GrSecurity was _NOT_ adding an additional restriction it would NOT
need an "access agreement" (no-redistribution agreement).
They are BLATANTLY violating section 6.
Please read:
perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/
Please.
The reason why this business model works is because:
1)Not-any-old-lawyer can walk into Federal Court.
You have to be accepted into the Federal Bar for that
district/circuit/etc (IIRC). Which means one of the
allready-on-federal-bar lawyers has to allow you in and vouch for you.
That makes for fewer high priced lawyers
2) The costs will be high: half a million plus in legal fees in the end.
3) You win court-costs ONLY if you have registered your copyright BEFORE
the violation you are suing defendant over, and also BEFORE any
same/similar violation. Otherwise you only get regular damages (revenue,
or profits, or what the defendant would have paid you for a license (0
dollars), whichever the court wishes). (Note: you have to register your
copyright at the time of the suit atleast, but if it is after the
violations you don't get statutory damages nor do you get attorney's
fees)
Also read this EFF brief, page 10 etc. It has some discussion on the
violation:
perens.com/static/OSS_Spenger_v_Perens/0_2018cv15189/docs1/pdf/18.pdf
On 2019-11-04 21:14, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * nipponmail:
>
>> You are incorrect. GPL version 2 section 6 states that one shall not
>> add
>> additional restrictions between the agreement between the licensee and
>> further licensees. It governs that relationship vis-a-vis the
>> protected
>> Work.
>>
>> GrSecurity has, indeed, stipulated an additional restrictive term.
>> From: You may distribute derivative works freely.
>> GrSecurity has forced customers to agree to: We shall not distribute
>> the
>> (non-separable) derivative work EXCEPT to our own customers (when
>> required).
>>
>> That is clearly an additional restrictive term.
>
> I assume they did this as part of their subscription agreement. Their
> customers are free to terminate that agreement and exercise their
> rights under the GPL. They just can't have it both ways.
>
> I believe this a fairly common approach to subscription and service
> agreements for GPL software.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-11-05 0:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <b0668893d6fbfeca10a724e1c5846e92@firemail.cc>
[not found] ` <E1iRgHg-0007e0-Gd@fencepost.gnu.org>
2019-11-04 17:56 ` Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)? nipponmail
2019-11-04 17:58 ` Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)? - BP and EFF have addressed nipponmail
2019-11-04 18:20 ` Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)? - He is violating, but you can also rescind the license nipponmail
[not found] ` <2fbd35b601c740b3cf88b73df7a2c123@firemail.cc>
[not found] ` <87ftj3gx9h.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
2019-11-05 0:37 ` Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)? nipponmail
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.