Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1666870
| From | aconcernedfossdev@airmail.cc |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? |
| Date | 2017-06-15 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tSFYn-4Nd-49@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tSFYn-4Nd-51@gated-at.bofh.it> <tSFYn-4Nd-53@gated-at.bofh.it> <tSFYn-4Nd-55@gated-at.bofh.it> <tSFYn-4Nd-57@gated-at.bofh.it> <tSFYn-4Nd-59@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
From a legal standpoint the pulling of the public patches is significant. Before then there was a cause of action due to the imposition of an additional term, but since the rights-holders 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, aconcernedfossdev@airmail.cc 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
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? aconcernedfossdev@airmail.cc - 2017-06-15 18:40 +0200
csiph-web