RMS isn't going to do anything about GRSecurity

[Anonymous No.17326452]

I've been emailing RMS. (Regarding the GCC plugins, etc)
RMS isn't going to do anything about GRSecurity because Bradly Kuhn, a non-lawyer who stabbed RMS in the back recently
>ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html
, said nothing can be done.

What the FUCK?

RMS says "No evidence right?" and "I'm not part of the FSF anymore" and "wasn't it agreed that nothing could be done?"
There is in-writing evidence:
>https://new.perens.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/06/grsecstablepatchaccessagreement_additionalterms.pdf
Has he forgotten about this:
Has he ever heard of "Discovery"?
Subpoena the customer list,
then subpoena the customers.

I told him the contributors to the FSF codebase should sue to recover their copyrights on the basis of fraud in the inducement then.

Why are these free-software people such fucking FAGGOTS that WONT SUE?

(And yes: you can recover donations to organizations that misuse your donation / don't do what you've instructed in atleast NY and California)

Bradly Kuhn is NOT A LAWYER: he's just a FAGGOT with a Bachelors degree, RMS BELIEVES HIM, and ignores actual lawyers. Is RMS a senile idiot?

[Anonymous No.17326465]

>>>/g/74818681
>Grsec is adding additional terms to the support contract. Not to the program or the GPL license.

That simply does not matter. The GPL forbids ANY additional terms between the licensee and down-the-line distributees, obviously where there is a nexuis between the protected Work, and the contract.

You seem to misunderstand what a copyright license is. It is permission to use the protected Work, from the Copyright owners. (In this case it isn't a contract: you didn't pay any bargained for consideration to receive the permissions: they were just granted for nothing)

Here the Copyright Owner has stipulated that if YOU the licensee proffer ANY additional restrictions (section 6) OR modify or distribute the Program except as EXPRESSLY provided under this License (section 4); your loicense is revoked at that moment.

Adding a "you may not redistribute the derivative work of the Program, and if you do we will assay penalties upon you (no refund etc)" is NOT "distribut(ing) the Program as expressly provided under this License.

It is, infact, distributing (and modifying) the Program under terms that are NOT under the Express terms of the license.

Yes GRSecurity is in violation.

And perhaps (you?) Rohibit Chabara is an accessory to that scheme (contributory or vicarious copyright infringement)

[Anonymous No.17326482]

>>>/g/74818612
It is a GPL violation, Rohibit Chabra.

And yes, it is a violation of:

> 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void,

Grsecurity is a modification of the Program. They are modifying the Program, and sublicensing it, with added terms. They are in violation.

And of:
>6. ... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

They are violating the license on two counts, not just one count.

[Anonymous No.17326514]

>Where does it say you can't add any further terms to the transaction? It says you can't add any further *restrictions* to the


> 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void,
</blockquote>

Grsecurity is a modification of the Program. They are modifying the Program, and sublicensing it, with added terms. They are in violation.

Additionally, A consequence, aswell as A negative covenant, is a restriction.

>You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.


They are violating the license on two counts, not just one count.

[Anonymous No.17326532]

Install gentoo

[Anonymous No.17326620]

>>>74818190
>"""""Grsec isn't violating the GPL."""""


>4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

>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.


Grsecurity has added such an additional term when it distributes the derivative work to distributees,
>https://perens.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/06/grsecstablepatchaccessagreement_additionalterms.pdf
which the GCC and linux copyright holders have forbidden.

Grsec is violating the GCC and the linux copyright.

[Anonymous No.17326660]

[Anonymous No.17327217]

Why doesn't RMS do or say anything?
Is he finished?

Old decrepit man with no testosterone?

[Anonymous No.17327559]

The GPL has teeth, but they're not attached to a jaw.

Dear RMS; If you don't want to defend free software in the courts anymore, if you don't want to be involved at all, maybe you need to make an announcement. People still look up to you as "the head", but if you want to be an "old decrepit man with no drive" now... you need to tell everyone about your retirement.

This "we can't do anything" thought is complete bullshit from Bradly Kuhn, and whatever other morons you're hanging out with these days: it does NOT come from ANY ip lawyers. You have a good case on the GCC side, and the linux kernel copyright holders have a great case, atleast on the law (now on recovery...)

You can nail these people (Grsecurity) to a pillar.
But you won't encourage that.

You've sold the GPL dream down the BSD river. Why? Because some women complained about your opinions? This is pathetic, get some testosterone injections and fight.

What are you afraid of? Grsecurity suing you for libel too? They are blatantly violating the GPL. Section 6 and section 4. They are both civilly liable for damages, and (since they've made over 1k off of their direct copyright infringement) criminally liable. That is: Bradly spengler aswell as those assisting him.

Why should any of us (mostly men) programmers have anything to do with Free Software if YOU will not bear your teeth once in awhile and force compliance with the license you have asked us to use: to put fear into those who would otherwise violate it and bar us from the full fruits of our programmatic efforts?

[Anonymous No.17327578]

Tell me that? Or do you just not care if men contribute to Free Software anymore: You think the women will do this hobby for free like the men have? They won't. You're living in a dreamworld if you think otherwise (men fall in love with engineering; that's why they're willing to do it for free). The same dreamworld where you listen to the likes of Bradly Kuhn, even now, a completely unqualified individual who always tryst to STYMIE and SLOWDOWN any legal action this past half decade (or more).

I can't believe 1) some woman complaining and 2) Grsecurity's libel-lawsuit threats have shut you up, taken you down, and ended Free Software (the share-and-share-alike strain). But that's what has happened.

Grsecurity has gotten away with it, every other company knows it, they are BLATANTLY violating section 6 and 4 (of v2 of the GPL), EVERYONE knows it, NOTHING will be done about it. GPL is BSD license, effectively, because the white male programmers are scumbag wimps who won't even SUE. They won't even _SUE_. It doesn't take any physical effort to sue. If you'd bother to register your copyrights lawyers would be happy to help you with getting those statutory damages.

This is... it's just beyond words. It's basically all a lie: everything you've claimed to others: because without enforcement the GPL and all it stands for, all you've campaigned for, is just ... well just as effective as this email.


With regret,