Comment M5S9 Re: Where did the comments go?


Grsecurity stops issuing public patches, citing trademark abuse


Where did the comments go? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-09 04:08 (#KVWG)

>BTW: show me the part in the GPL that states that you must make the source code available to anyone?

Please keep up. Read the above posts.

Short story: If the GPLv2 is a license then we simply revoke spenglers permission to modify the linux source code. There's no 'no-revocation' clause. This is why the GPLv3 had to be drafted. Licenses arise from property law, read up on them. They are not a product of copyright law as all lay techies suppose.

If you argue the GPLv2 is a contract, then, as you may note, the GPLv2 is not a fully integrated document (notice there's no integration clause?), then extrinsic evidence comes in to show that the rightsholders never intended source code of derivative works to be closed in this manner. Usage in trade and course of dealings of the party come in.

If it matters, this case is distinguishable from RedHat etc as RedHat is simply failing to distribute binaries to anyone not contracting with them, whereas it does publish source code (and for a reason). Here Spengler wills to close the source code to a derivative work.
And: if it matters: RedHat's approach has not been tested in court.

You probably don't get to argue contract, as has been stated earlier, so a plaintiff just revokes the license and you're done with grsecurity: you want to close it, it will be closed, completely.

You ever wonder why the FSF requires all copyrights to be assigned to them in their projects. Any one of the 10's of 1000s of linux contributors can be a plaintiff, they all have standing.

Re: Where did the comments go? (Score: 1)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-09 22:45 (#KZ3M)

What above posts?

Re: Where did the comments go? (Score: 2, Interesting)

by on 2015-09-10 13:29 (#M157)

When I first saw this story pop up, there was 1 comment attached, but I couldn't view it regardless of the settings I had. I checked back in a couple hours and there were two comments I couldn't see. So I have no idea what those were or why I couldn't see them. Maybe they were auto detected as spam or something?

Re: Where did the comments go? (Score: -1, Troll)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-10 15:42 (#M1M7)

They were legal arguments about this case that the editor here doesn't want you to read.

They show that spengler can be sued for his action and successfully.
They also show that his license to modify the linux kernel can be rescinded.

Ofcourse the editor here hasn't been through law school so it's all gibberish to him.
The editor here also supports spengeler in his actions to close the stable patch of grsecurity.

How do you feel about the editor keeping this knowlege from you, no matter what settings you change?

Re: Where did the comments go? (Score: 1)

by on 2015-09-10 16:50 (#M1X9)

Well, quite honestly, I think you are showing signs of paranoia and persecution complex. I actually appreciate some level of gibberish clean up on sites like this. I used to think that no censorship anytime any where on any site was the way to go, but slashdot quickly disabused me of that idea. Quality discussions don't happen by accident, even though some level of trust of the editorial staff is required that they are not removing valid comments to skew the discussion.

Re: Where did the comments go? (Score: -1, Spam)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-10 17:17 (#M1ZG)

Quality discussions can not happen when neither most of the commentators nor the editors understand the subject.

You can't have one person commenting that knows what their talking about and 100 others from the peanut gallery.

In that case you simply have the 100 from the peanut gallery imagining they have superior knowledge than the one
person versed in the field.

Which is what we have here: The second a legal analysis was posted it was modded -1 irrelevant. The very second.

The idiot who is the moderator doesn't want such a discussion to commence.
Even though spengler wills to close a derivative work of the linux kernel he's the "small guy"
so that's OK, Intel is the "big guy", so they're bad.

Even though we all get screwed as spengler, essentially, wills to un-GPL a work.


2015-09-11 18:26
INice juscomment figuremoved, odute how to makcrude replies in othe previous posts visible. I'd have to agree with you, they aren't that bad you are very argumentative and are pushing a non-orthodox interpretation of things that people think they understand. I'll admit I don't exactly know for certain that you aren't correct. But I wouldn't hide them.

From my understanding, I'd be of the opinion that GR sec can distribute to whomever they want, as long as the provide the source code. One of their sponsors could theoretically take the code, strip out the trademarked name and re-distribute it like centos ( well, before rh bought centos) . Are you saying that they will distribute as a binary kernel module or something? I wouldn't have thought that was possible. In any case, if they do that, then they can't access the GPL_ONLY functions.

Junk Status

Not marked as junk