patches (Score: 1) by pete@pipedot.org on 2015-09-02 00:54 (#K56Q) they produce patches, not redistrib. linux. its their code, and patch, and thus should be able to do what they want, no?that aside, im upvoting because the full version of the story sounds quite interesting. they themselves are tired of seeing GPL violations, among other complaints, leading to their decision Re: patches (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-09-02 02:00 (#K5A1) Patches are necessarily derivative code, so covered by the license.However the GPL never said you have to make your code freely available to the public. It's just that once you give it out, you can't stop anyone else from redistributing it, if they want to. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-02 13:53 (#K719) That might not be the full conclusion to the issue. The GPL likely falls under the contract theory of copyright licenses: it is not a bare license.http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.htmlContracts, unless fully integrated, are not evaluated solely on the words within the four corners of the contract document. The GPL makes no mention of being fully integrated. Brad Spengler may very well be violating an unwritten portion of the agreement with this closing of the derivative work and it's rescission from public use. It is a theory that will have to be tested in court, and one of the thousands of contributors to the kernel will be needed as a plaintiff for standing to sue, but once that is achieved a suit can move forward against Spengler of GRSecurity.
Re: patches (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-09-02 02:00 (#K5A1) Patches are necessarily derivative code, so covered by the license.However the GPL never said you have to make your code freely available to the public. It's just that once you give it out, you can't stop anyone else from redistributing it, if they want to. Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-02 13:53 (#K719) That might not be the full conclusion to the issue. The GPL likely falls under the contract theory of copyright licenses: it is not a bare license.http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.htmlContracts, unless fully integrated, are not evaluated solely on the words within the four corners of the contract document. The GPL makes no mention of being fully integrated. Brad Spengler may very well be violating an unwritten portion of the agreement with this closing of the derivative work and it's rescission from public use. It is a theory that will have to be tested in court, and one of the thousands of contributors to the kernel will be needed as a plaintiff for standing to sue, but once that is achieved a suit can move forward against Spengler of GRSecurity.
Re: patches (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-02 13:53 (#K719) That might not be the full conclusion to the issue. The GPL likely falls under the contract theory of copyright licenses: it is not a bare license.http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.htmlContracts, unless fully integrated, are not evaluated solely on the words within the four corners of the contract document. The GPL makes no mention of being fully integrated. Brad Spengler may very well be violating an unwritten portion of the agreement with this closing of the derivative work and it's rescission from public use. It is a theory that will have to be tested in court, and one of the thousands of contributors to the kernel will be needed as a plaintiff for standing to sue, but once that is achieved a suit can move forward against Spengler of GRSecurity.