Grsecurity stops issuing public patches, citing trademark abuse
The gurus behind the popular and respected Linux kernel hardening effort Grsecurity will stop providing their stable patches to the public. In future, only paying sponsors will get access to stable patches to shore up their kernels' defenses. The test series, unfit for production use, will however continue to be available, to avoid impacting the Gentoo Hardened and Arch Linux communities. The project's full source code will still be released to the public at large, but non-sponsors will have to pick through every update to find out what's applicable to them. The whole situation stems from WindRiver, a subsidiary of Intel, which "has been using the grsecurity name all over its marketing material and blog posts to describe their backported, unsupported, unmaintained version in a version of Linux with other code modifications that haven't been evaluated by us for security impact." After spending several thousand on legal fees, faced with "a huge legal team, the capability to drag out the case for years" and a threat to request "all available sanctions and attorneys' fees" were the lawsuit to proceed against them, Grsecurity decided pursuing the case through the courts was not practical.
>So, again, your 'revocation' is fundamentally incompatible with the GPL. Nothing grsecurity is doing is violating the GPL, and your fantasy land 'revocation' would itself be a violation of the GPL.
"I, a lay techi faggot said so, and thus it is so, I don't need years of training in the law: I'm a genius, look at these square glasses!"
Why you're wrong has been stated above, you have yet to refute any of it with legal arguments. All you've done is cite press releases with no information, and a case that is not on-point at all (derrrr it be using duhh same lycennsue sooo derrrrrrr it must ddeeeuuuuuhhhhhh be speakin dUUUHHHH to eheheh dee same issueee EHHhhshsh) Yea, we get it, you're not a student of the law. You are just a lay piece of shit FUCK.
> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
The ability of a copyright holder to rescind a license is not a restriction on the recipient: it is a right, as of law, of the rights-holder. Secondly the You spoken of here is not the original copyright holder but the manufacturer of the derivative work or a intermediary recipient. A license is a grant from the rightsholder to others to use his property, this document is read as if the rightsholder was speaking it to you (or whomever the second party is). Basic stuff, obvious from the language.
As I said, no training in the law on your side, you're even citing things that do not help you at all since you do not understand their basis.
Sorry SJW piece of shit. You didn't go through law school, you don't even know the edges of the law, and you are wrong. You can believe the FSF all you want; they have an interest in hiding the truth. I'd be happy for your whole edifice to crumble as that would hurt you pro-women's rights, anti-marry-young-girls pieces of filth.
>I try not to put too much effort into arguing with the schizophrenic on anonymous imageboards, especially you MikeeUSA.
Not a legal argument you piece of shit. Not one. Just handwaves and insults. :)