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.
I provided multiple sources for the non-revocability of the GPL. You've provided NO SOURCES for your claim, just your own paranoid delusions based upon very little reading of the law, and an overabundance of willful ignorance.Then they would simply keep quiet on the issue. There's no benefit to them lying. Instead, they're saying it because case law backs them up.Except they didn't keep their mouth shut. They weighed-in and specifically said the GPL (v2) is not revocable. I already listed the reasons for GPLv3. Revocablity isn't one of them.I don't understand how you think you can argue with the legal sources I've cited, from your position of extreme ignorance. No matter how many times I prove you completely and totally wrong on one issue or another, you just ignore it and twist your claims around next time around so you don't have to acknowledge your error, and just pretend you weren't making incorrect, crazy and unsupportable claims a few minutes earlier...
And look, here's yet another source that's right on-the-nose:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-1&id=163