gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC a


From: nipponmail
Subject: Re: Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)? - BP and EFF have addressed
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 17:55:38 +0000
User-agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6

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, address@hidden 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



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]