>My take is that my opinion doesn't matter a hill of beans, as I am >not in a position to sue Grsecurity. Linus and the FSF have all the >resources they need to be in this fight, assuming theyu want to be. - >If the ppeople with skin in this game and the money to hire lawyers to >fight Grsecurity aren't willing to step up on the facts you've already >presented, nothing I say will make them. >I don't shrink from a fight, but I choose my battles carefully. This >doesn't look to me like a good one to be in. - >I have never thought GPL-style reciprocal licensing was very important >to the success of open source, and never use it for new work myself. >That I hold this opinion is no secret and I'm surprised you didn't >know it. It does mean I will be much less upset than you if somebody >breaks the GPL. >You're ignoring several important secondary effects that do in fact >provide rewards for releasing. >But I'm not going to argue this point in detail, because I need to >make money today. With an open-source tool I released (reposurgeon) >that generates consulting contracts for me. He won't say shit about grsec. He's afraid of getting sued or "doesn't care". Now he won't respond to my emails. Just like Richard Matthew Stallman won't respond to anything regarding grsec. They're fucking frauds.

Patches are derivative works "even if" they don't contain the original source code (programmers claim otherwise: because programmers are Dunning Kruger effected pieces of pompous shit who don't know what they don't know) (An example: I probably spelt the name of the effect wrong) >Section 101 of the US Copyright Act >A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work.” >https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf >Right to Prepare Derivative WorksOnly the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre-pare, or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of that work. The owner of a copyright is generally the author or someone who has obtained the exclusive rights from the author. In any case where a copyrighted work is used without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection will not extend to any part of the work in which such mate-rial has been used unlawfully. The unauthorized adaptation of a work may constitute copyright infringement.

To: esr@thyrsus.com Look at the economics from the Programmers* perspective: If he is to set aside the enormous time and effort it takes to write a program** he has to get something out of it. 0) "To scratch an itch" can be one of those things But why even ever release the program in that case? It makes no economic sense to the programmer: he already has what he wanted to create: by his own hand; there is little reason to release it to others. 1) To be paid in the labor of others (should they choose use the product of his labor) Constructively; This is why the GPL exists (especially according to Linus, who was always adamant about "getting contributions back"): to be paid in /kind/ instead of fiat or currency. That is: though forgoing direct monetary remuneration: the programmer, by choosing a share-alike license is targeting remuneration in the form of being able to access any changes and improvements made to his Work. That is his pay. That's why OpenSouce exploded: because programmers believed that they would have their hobby projects improved. This makes sense to the high-school and undergrad college kids who actually start the opensource projects; which later grow and grow because of the share-alike understanding. Linus started his kernel in the same way: during the same stage of life. Linus hammered home time and time again that: everything's fine as-long as the code is open. In video, in written correspondence, for decades. So much so you could argue in court that the Standard Practice of the "Linux"(Kernel) industry is incorporated into the terms. Grsecurity has violated both the text of the GPL license, and the instructions Linus has given; and the understanding that all the programmers who voluntarily contributed their labor to Linux: and the wider OpenSouce movement. This choice... is not being honored. Not anymore.

ESR says I'm wrong about reasons to even make something opensource at all: > > Look at the economics from the Programmers* perspective: > > If he is to set aside the enormous time and effort it takes to write a > > program** he has to get something out of it. > > > > 0) "To scratch an itch" can be one of those things > > But why even ever release the program in that case? It makes no > > economic sense to the programmer: he already has what he wanted to > > create: by his own hand; there is little reason to release it to > > others. >You're ignoring several important secondary effects that do in fact provide rewards for releasing. >But I'm not going to argue this point in detail, because I need to >make money today. With an open-source tool I released (reposurgeon) >that generates consulting contracts for me.

To: esr@thyrsus.com This is what everyone says about RMS and others (linus, you, all the known opensource guys etc) not commenting on Grsecurity: >>81349245 "they won't pick your battle because they know it's a losing one grsec isn't violating copyrights and isn't violating the GPL " IE: Silence is consent. You don't want to say anything because you don't want to be sued for libel like Bradly Spengler sued Bruce Perens. Same with RMS. Either Grsecurity is right or All of you opensource speakers are scared old men. RMS speaks of _EVERYTHING_ _OTHER_ than enforcing his freesoftware vision anymore. You can try it: email rms@gnu.org on ANY topic: he'll respond. Mention Grsecurity: he won't. You're afraid of losing money. So you won't say anything. This is a betrayal. Your words roped us all into this opensource thing; and you won't back it up after we did all that work induced by you, linus, RMS, etc. ONLY Bruce Perens has the balls to put his money where his mouth is, out of all of you. And yes: When you induce people to do work based on a promise of enforcement (ex: linus) (also RMS (gcc plugins are involved in this aswell, and RMS explicitly induced copyright transfers on condition that the copyrights would be defended: which they are not being)) you are liable for that. Also all that money you made today isn't actually money. If a weel cannot roll is it a wheel? Money cannot buy what it was originally invented for (such is forbidden). You're not being paid squat.

To: esr@thyrsus.com This is what everyone agrees on: Grsecurity can do as it pleases with your code. Or to put it in more concrete terms: (Quote): - - - Look, when Grsecurity decideds to add additional terms between it and it's customers: that's a business decision, protected by American Business Law. Your copyright bullshit doesn't override that. Sure, if Grsecurity was operating as a charity it might have to abide by the linux kernel license and not add additional terms when distributing it's changes to the linux kernel and the compiler. But it's not. It's operating as a Business. It can add any additional terms it wants when distributing for pay to it's Customers. This is a Fundamental american freedom as confirmed by the Supreme Court. Additionally Grsecurity did it's due dilligence by having an attorney from the Patent Bar look over it's business plan and the Patent Bar attorney found no copyright problems: American Business law gives an absolute right to conduct Business with whatever customers one wants to; and to cut off any customers one wants to at anytime: INCLUDING as a forewarned penalty if an act of redistribution to non-customers occurs. It doesn't matter what linus' copyright rights are to his work, nor what his license supposidly allows. American Business Law allows Grsecurity to add whatever additional terms it wants to when working with IT'S CUSTOMERS. It has chosen to add: No redistribution, Forum is Penn. State, Law is Penn. Law, No liability if penalty for illicit redistribution is enacted. Grsecurity has the RIGHT to protect it's PROPERTY: which are the changes it has chosen to make to the Linux Kernel and the GCC compiler. It does NOT matter what linus thinks his copyright means. It doesn't mean anything. Which is WHY linus hasn't spoken up: He knows he has no legs to stand on: his copyright isn't worth trash. Same with RMS and the Free Software Foundation and their GCC compiler: Their copyright isn't worth trash. All Programmers Agr

To: esr@thyrsus.com Codes of conduct weren't part of the agreement, nor was allowing violators to do as they please. Alot of us are starting to really hate Linus. A real boiling hatread for him.

He hasn't responded since his "I'm making money!" reply. (No he isn't: the original use for money is to purchase men's young daughters for marraige: which is forbidden.

>>3832 Is that a girl, or a bacha bazi boy? >>3833 She's cute, 10/10 would buy her for 10 goats. >>3835 I think those are Yazidi girls from the Levant.

>>4189 It's a girl. They're all from Afghanistan, not Levant.

GRsec will never be held to account. There is not a single person of note who wants to pursue it. The GPL is a fantasy and has no teeth and is irrelevant.

>>4353 >GRsec will never be held to account. Wrong. Funds are being gathered. >There is not a single person of note who wants to pursue it. Wrong. There is a person of note who wants to pursue it and is taking steps to do as such. It may take some time. >The GPL is a fantasy and has no teeth and is irrelevant. That is because of Richard Matthew Stallman: who is at the helm of the free-software movement but will not say a word. It is RMS's fault that he doesn't even speak to defend his copyright license. It's like a ship without a captain.

>>4353 >There is not a single person of note who wants to pursue it. This is completely wrong. You are wrong.