[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and t
Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)?
Mon, 04 Nov 2019 15:57:16 +0000
(Note: Sending here now as this the other list was for tech discussions
instead, oh an they lied: the pre-moderation is still on (for me,
because they do not want this topic discussed (and have admitted so))).
(SFConservancy hasn't done anything in years, FSF Legal is the same)
Could you share your thoughts, if any, of why no one will sue GrSecurity
("Open Source Security" (a Pennsylvania company)) for their blatant
violation of section 6 of version 2 of the GNU General Public License?.
Both regarding their GCC plugins and their Linux-Kernel patch which is a
non-separable derivative work?.
They distribute such under a no-redistribution agreement to paying
customers (the is the only distribution they do). If the customer
redistributes the derivative works they are punished..
That is: GrSecurity (OSS) has created a contract to /Defeat/ the GPL and
has done so successfully so far. Very successfully. The GPL is basically
the BSD license now, since such as been allowed to stand..
This is how businesses see the GPL. They are no longer afraid: They will
simply do what GrSecurity has done. Something that was supposed to stay
liberated: a security patch that helped users maintain their privacy by
not being immediately rooted when using a linux kernel on a GNU system;
is now non-free..
With this the GPL _fails_..
NO ONE has sued GrSecurity. Thus they are seen as "having it right"
"correct" "we can do this"..
Wouldn't the FSF have standing regarding the GCC plugins atleast?.
Couldn't you all rally linux-kernel copyright holders to bring a joint
- Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)?,