>they practically pioneered the exploit mitigations now used by windows, openbsd, you name it
And now they're taking it away from us lower classes. We aren't allowed security, and Spengler doesn't give a damn that his work is derived from a freely distributed opensource project: The Linux Kernel, and he'll use every effort he can to subvert the intentions of the authors of the Linux Kernel (this is called bad faith)
Oh and if you want to argue that the GPL is a bare license rather than a unilateral contract (You'd likely be incorrect but...)
Licenses can be revoked at any time, in-which case we need only one linux kernel contributor to issue notice to Brad Spengler that said license to use his portion of the code is hereby revoked. Thence-forth Spengler will be liable for statutory damages ;-)
It's like you don't understand that, though the basis for the property interest itself flows from, in the US, congressional statute (and the constitution itself), and in the UK, AU, etc from parliamentary law, the rules governing alienation of that interest stem from property and contract law.
So Does he wish to be gotten coming or going? Contract, where extrinsic evidence can come into play, or bare license where if we have a plaintiff he can revolk permission (remeber: (C) isn't signed over in linux dev (and you wonder why FSF requires it... It's for more than the one reason they state))
(It ofcourse gets better than that in Central Europe and Commonwealth countries where, IIRC, you don't even have check weather the nature of the license would bar revocation) (Any contributors to the Linux kernel from germany?)
And now they're taking it away from us lower classes. We aren't allowed security, and Spengler doesn't give a damn that his work is derived from a freely distributed opensource project: The Linux Kernel, and he'll use every effort he can to subvert the intentions of the authors of the Linux Kernel (this is called bad faith)
Oh and if you want to argue that the GPL is a bare license rather than a unilateral contract (You'd likely be incorrect but...)
Licenses can be revoked at any time, in-which case we need only one linux kernel contributor to issue notice to Brad Spengler that said license to use his portion of the code is hereby revoked. Thence-forth Spengler will be liable for statutory damages ;-)
It's like you don't understand that, though the basis for the property interest itself flows from, in the US, congressional statute (and the constitution itself), and in the UK, AU, etc from parliamentary law, the rules governing alienation of that interest stem from property and contract law.
So Does he wish to be gotten coming or going? Contract, where extrinsic evidence can come into play, or bare license where if we have a plaintiff he can revolk permission (remeber: (C) isn't signed over in linux dev (and you wonder why FSF requires it... It's for more than the one reason they state))
(It ofcourse gets better than that in Central Europe and Commonwealth countries where, IIRC, you don't even have check weather the nature of the license would bar revocation) (Any contributors to the Linux kernel from germany?)