* Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL - What about GRSECURITY?
[not found] ` <CAFUG7Cd8S+sGRkKB3z1PoPz14ReaNN=unE6E7tTuFYGB8LqdBA@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2021-01-18 16:05 ` nipponmail
2021-01-18 23:01 ` nipponmail
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: nipponmail @ 2021-01-18 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Boris Lukashev; +Cc: linux-kernel
> First off, its no longer even accurate
Wrong. Grsecurity is violating the Linux Copyright by preventing
redistribution, by adding additional terms between it and distributees.
It does not matter if Linus, the weak faggot, is "never going to
include" it.
Grsecurity is violating the GCC copyright for the same reason.
> The whole GPL mess is broken, clearly, and nobody is looking to
> enforce it - industry is waiting it out till Redox and BSDs become
It doesn't FUCKING matter what the "INDUSTRY" is doing or wants.
You techies are FUCKING FAGGOTS. YOU own the COPYRIGHT to whatever you
"contributed" to Linux (you never signed over your copyrights). It does
N O T matter what your fucking "bosses" in "DUH INDUSTRY" want you to
do or do not want you to do. YOU can and HAVE TO SUE.
I hate you fucking people for your inaction. You're like a hive mind of
weak castrated scum.
'DURR OUR 'peer' ARE AGAINST IT SO WE CAN DO NOTHING' - White Tech
__FAGGOTS__
> Apologies to actual homosexuals... using this word "faggot" is an
> affront to you:
> since it compares you to weak white quisling males
> but english doesn't give many options
I just hate you people.
You just let it happen.
Then you cope "well, we weren't going to include it anyway".
-----
Additionally:Linus, for years, induced others to assist him in his work
on his kernel, by claiming that those who violated the share-and-share
alike provisions of the license would be sued.
He explained AT LENGHT the "deal": you contribute code, if anyone
modifies it they cannot close the code, if they violate that they will
be sued. This is what he told his supporters and those who helped him.
A reasonable person would surmise that Linus was making a promise to sue
violators of the Linux Kernel License.
INSTEAD: He is paid 1.3 million dollars per year, and does not say a
word. (What is he being paid for? We can guess: To forgo the legal right
to sue? To NOT encourage suits? To DISCOURAGE suits?)
That is: The linux kernel contributors detrimentally relied on Linus'
words: his false promise of action.
Yes: he should be punished. They would not have done the programming
work without those false statements of Linus'
On 2021-01-17 21:58, Boris Lukashev wrote:
> Why do you send this stuff to people?
> First off, its no longer even accurate - grsec code _changes_ to Linux
> have been deemed as "never to be adopted" by Linus. Without those
> changes, their GCC plugins can't work properly, and those plugins are
> part of the build-toolchain, not the C source. So even if you gave
> them a billion dollars tomorrow, Linux would still never use the work.
> The whole GPL mess is broken, clearly, and nobody is looking to
> enforce it - industry is waiting it out till Redox and BSDs become
> more viable for production OS.
> So why send these emails? Venting purposes?
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 1:03 PM <nipponmail@firemail.cc> wrote:
>
>> Linus etc do not give a FUCK that Grsecurity is BLATANTLY violating
>> the
>> GPL. So why do you fucking retards complain about this?
>>> DURR BECUAUSE WE DON'T HAVE 2 DO ANYTHING, CAN JUST COMMISERATE
>>
>> (
>>
> https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/
>>
>> )
>
> --
>
> Boris Lukashev
> Systems Architect
> Semper Victus [1]
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://www.sempervictus.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: Linksys WRT54G and the GPL - What about GRSECURITY?
[not found] ` <CAFUG7Cd8S+sGRkKB3z1PoPz14ReaNN=unE6E7tTuFYGB8LqdBA@mail.gmail.com>
2021-01-18 16:05 ` nipponmail
@ 2021-01-18 23:01 ` nipponmail
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: nipponmail @ 2021-01-18 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: rms, bruce, esr, moglen, blukashev, tcallawa, editor, skraw.ml,
torvalds
Bradly Spengler continues to violate the GPL, it's fine now tho: he's
creating his own reality and everyone is accepting it:
https://mobile.twitter.com/spendergrsec/status/1349086946560253952
He "corrects" people saying "grsec isn't gpl anymore", informing them
he's simply "running a subscription service". This is THE reality now:
since none of you, except for Bruce Perens, did anything. None of you
care about free software.
----
Tweet
See new Tweets
Conversation
アルミ
@schrotthaufen
·
Jan 11
I don’t know how many hours I poured into getting my kernel config for
grsec to work (because pebkac), and then a few years later it ceases to
be gpl
Loudly crying face
Quote Tweet
DWIZZZZZZZZZZZZLE
@dwizzzleMSFT
· Jan 11
The biggest impediment to security on Linux is the same as Windows. Its
currently much too hard for the average person to deploy hardening
policies and use hardened kernels. The tyranny of the kernel conf
reigns. The reality is a few Linux users will ever touch a conf
Show this thread
Brad Spengler
@spendergrsec
·
Jan 12
Always was GPLv2, always will be. GPL doesn't mean "I can demand free
work/support/warranty." Doesn't mean you have to like decades-old
subscription policies like Red Hat has, but neither do I like people
making things up b/c they want something for $0.
The GPL and a Condition on Providing Future Versions or Services »
Chhabra® Law
Section 6 of the GNU Public License (GPL) version 2 states, in part,
that “[y]ou may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’
exercise of the rights granted herein.” Naturally, the...
clfip.com
アルミ
@schrotthaufen
·
Jan 12
I may have gotten that wrong. What I meant was: “It’s not free anymore,
and last time I inquired about licensing to end users the answer was
‘no’”. I don’t blame you for turning it into a payed only product. If I
was in your shoes, I’d have done the same given the circumstances.
Brad Spengler
@spendergrsec
·
Jan 12
It's important to be specific about these things though, because people
will take your words and infer certain things that simply aren't true.
Same regarding the phrase of "licensing to end users" -- we don't sell
a license, we offer a subscription service.
Brad Spengler
@spendergrsec
Replying to
@spendergrsec
and
@schrotthaufen
Anyone who receives a copy of grsecurity, direct customer of ours or
not, has a license to it: the GPLv2. It may seem to be a pedantic
point, but it's important.
8:12 PM · Jan 12, 2021·Twitter Web App
1
Retweet
----
On 2021-01-17 21:58, Boris Lukashev wrote:
> Why do you send this stuff to people?
> First off, its no longer even accurate - grsec code _changes_ to Linux
> have been deemed as "never to be adopted" by Linus. Without those
> changes, their GCC plugins can't work properly, and those plugins are
> part of the build-toolchain, not the C source. So even if you gave
> them a billion dollars tomorrow, Linux would still never use the work.
> The whole GPL mess is broken, clearly, and nobody is looking to
> enforce it - industry is waiting it out till Redox and BSDs become
> more viable for production OS.
> So why send these emails? Venting purposes?
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 1:03 PM <nipponmail@firemail.cc> wrote:
>
>> Linus etc do not give a FUCK that Grsecurity is BLATANTLY violating
>> the
>> GPL. So why do you fucking retards complain about this?
>>> DURR BECUAUSE WE DON'T HAVE 2 DO ANYTHING, CAN JUST COMMISERATE
>>
>> (
>>
> https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/
>>
>> )
>
> --
>
> Boris Lukashev
> Systems Architect
> Semper Victus [1]
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://www.sempervictus.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread