StoryGrsecurity stops issuing public patches, citing trademark abuse
Spengler announced he is closing grsecurityNo he isn't doing that at all. The summary states this fact quite clearly.
it's ok to distribute copies of his work for a fee, as long as the source code is published isn't it? He is not publishing the source code. He is keeping it closed, except to people who payThe GPLv2 has NEVER required source code be "published". It only requires that any recipient of "object code" also be able to receive the source code, and you "may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients" meaning they could redistribute it further.
This is in the FAQ for anyone who spent a few seconds to look for it:
"the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL."
"The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if and when he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, when that is what he chooses."
"You can charge people a fee to get a copy from you. You can't require people to pay you when they get a copy from someone else."
licenses can be revoked at any time by the rights holderThe GPL is not revocable:
* http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163r>* http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanDeveloperThirdPartylockquote>There's no 'no-revocation' clause. This is why the GPLv3 had to be drafted.US law doesn't allow revocation, unless explicitly specified in license, which the GPLv2 does NOT. See sources above.
The FSF explained why they needed GPLv3 (patent deals, Tivoization, DRM, etc.), and NOWHERE did they list revocation as being an issue:
You ever wonder why the FSF requires all copyrights to be assigned to them in their projects.No, because they've explained why... "successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors."
the rights holders never intended that someone may close a derivative workYour repeated assertions of bad faith are both incredibly lazy and utterly insane, as the GPLv2 explicitly allows modifications & derivatives, explicitly allows you to "charge a fee", and nowhere claims you must make your modified version PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. Stop pretending to be a lawyer who has any clue what he is talking about, when you're clearly unwilling to do the slightest work to investigate the validity of your own unsupported claims. I won't be bothering, again.
At least you managed to avoid blaming Debian or women for any of this...
Not marked as junk