Grsecurity sucessfully nullified the GPL. Stallman lost. It's over.

Why won't RMS say anything about Grsecurity (Brad Spengler)'s violation of the GPL? (Both on the Linux Kernel and GCC (gcc plugins))?
Refresher if you forgot: https://perens.com/2017/06/28/...

The practice is spreading now as Grsecurity has nullified the GPL in the minds of all programmers.

Would be nice if he changed topic to the thing that is relevant to his work: Free software.
Why won't he say anything about Grsecurity's violation of the GPL on both the Linux Kernel and GCC (gcc plugins)?
Grsecurity has successfully completely nullified the "share and share alike" aspects of the GPL: regarding copyrighted works it DOES NOT own the original copyright to. Other derivative projects are going closed in the same way now: the practice is spreading; since Grsecurity has _PROVEN_ it effective. Why won't RMS say anything about this at all?

A refresher if you don't remeber: https://perens.com/2017/06/28/...

Why won't he speak about the Grsecurity GPL violation no matter how many people ask him about it?
Isn't he supposed to talk about free software?
Grsecurity has put up the most longstanding and upfront challenge to the GPL: effectivly completely nullifying the "share and share alike" aspect of it.
RMS stays silent.
Why?
This practice is now spreading to other projects who are going closed even if they are derivatives that don't own the original code of whatever they were modifying. Grsecurity has "proven" it effective. Why won't RMS even say one thing?

https://perens.com/2017/06/28/...

Why won't he (RMS) speak up on Grsecurity GPL violation?

YHWH explicitly allows child brides. RMS was in the right, the 3 previous times, before he changed his opinion in 2016.
It is white people that banned men marrying adorable cute young little girls the world over. Afghan men marry nice little 8 yr old virgin girls and are happy. Whites bomb any man who obtains happiness.

The Torah explicitly allows men to marry female children, including in
  cases of the rape (tahphas) of the girl child: Devarim chapter 22,
  verse 28. Key words: Na'ar (child (hebrew masoretic text)), Padia
  (child: padia+philos = paedophillia (greek septuagint)) Puella (young
  girl (latin vulgate))
  Nachmanides points out that a child may be called na'ar from the moment he is born

Rebecca was a child, not an adult.
Na'ar means child in ancient hebrew, not adult, and the original hebrew
in these passages is na'ar, not na'arah. All you have to do is read the
actual hebrew glyphs, not whatever your interlinear renders them as.

A complete Hebrew and English critical and pronouncing dictionary
na'ar. A lad, youth, son, a young servant, an INFANT, or NEW-BORN BABE, because just liberated from the womb. Jud. 13:17. Exod. 2:6. Gen. 24:19. 2 Sam. 13:33. (A complete Hebrew and English critical and pronouncing dictionary:>

Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics
Na'ar
The word naar refers to a VERY YOUNG PERSON

Are Grsecurity violating the Linux Kernel copyright license?

All programmers say that if you make changes to the sourcecode of a program, and then use the tool "diff" to create a file that innumerates the differences between your changed version of the source code and the original version of the source code: that you can distribute this "diff" file, this "patch" without regard to the license terms of the original source code.

Every single programmer believes this. [a][b](examples)

The Linux Kernel license, the GPL version 2 [1], contains the following provision:

> You may NOT modify, SUBLICENSE OR DISTRIBUTE... except as EXPRESSLY PROVIDED UNDER THIS LICENSE.

>**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.
>
>**5.** You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
>
>**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 edited the linux kernel, and has used the tool "diff" to create a file containing their changes to the kernel source code. They then distribute these changes with the following added conditions [2]

> No redistribution (or else) > You may only sue us in this forum > You may only use the law we choose > Waiver of liability if terminated due to redistribution

These are terms not included in the linux kernel copyright license.

Are the programmers correct? That they can do as they please just so long as they take all the edits they directly did to the source code and put them in a machine-created "patch" file to be re-applied to the source code once the distributee recieves their changes? IE: Can they ignore the copyright license by way of a differential record of their changes vs the original work. They _ALL_ believe this. Are they correct? (Is >RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 WL 127311 (W.D. Wash. 2000) completely wrong)

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/o...

[2] https://perens.com/wp-content/...

[a]
> [BarryManatee]
>It's grsecurity a kernel patch?, they don't distribute the kernel just the modifications.

[b]
>[mwharvey]
>Grsecurity
>
>Ah yes I have seen some other code like this. its an interesting approach. the install is likely a scripted call the user makes on their system where it pulls in the separate pieces onto the individuals system and builds them live. then its not them that violated anything. YOU the installer screwed them together.

>RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 WL 127311 (W.D. Wash. 2000)

>Creating a "plugin" that will run and alter the in-memory running application, is also prohibited without obeying the copyright owners instructions and limitations, and creates a prohibited derivative.

For some reason, programmers are adamant that if they create a patch they don't have to follow these rules. Even though a seperate program even modifying in-memory programs on only the user's machine, at the user's direction, did violate the copyright to the other program.

The original copyright holder of the original work (Linux Kernel), Linus Torvalds, stated in a video long ago his opinion regarding his work: Linux:
> in that video he states 'my world view is that all I require is the source code to be shared.'

Grsecurity (Bradly Spengler) is not allowing the source code of their changes to the linux kernel to be shared. What they do is they edit the source code of the linux kernel, then they use the program "diff" to make a list of their changes, then they distribute this to their customers, then the customer uses the program "diff" to "apply" the list of changes to the linux kernel source code. Grsecurity says that no one may redistribute the changes (or else). Linus' copyright license says if anyone prevents the sharing of derivative works, then their license is void. It also says if anyone distributes under any terms other than those terms expressly within Linus' copyright license (GPLv2 on linux) then their license is void and canceled. Grsecurity says that doesn't apply because they can "do business with whomever they want under what terms they wish according to US business law", and all programmers say that because it is distributed as a diff that they don't have to abide by Linus Torvalds copyright nor his licensing terms.

What is RMS's take on this?

Nope, the rescission happened this month, january 2019, and if the little game can rescind, so can unhappy old linux programmers who don't like being ruled over by non-programmers as "thank you" for their decades of gratis work.

(to preempt the "NO, HALIFAX!" claims)

Section 4 of the GPLv2 states "parties who have received..."
The "you" here is the licensee, it is not the grantor (See Section 0 of the GPLv2 "Each licensee is addressed as "you". "). It is not applicable against the grantor of the license: it is a rule the licensee has to abide by, set by the grantor, in-order to have permission to modify or create derivative works at all.

About the printer driver case: The contract in that case is the preliminary writing, the offer to do business ("pay us, or alternatively follow the GPL"). The acceptance of that contract by following the terms of that preliminary writing (choosing the GPL instead of paying, or paying for the commercial license instead of following the GPL). That is why both contract and damages under copyright are available. Damages for the contract portion ("pay us"), or damages for violating the GPL license. It is distinguishable from the GPL standing alone.

You can always take a license and incorporate it into a contract situation if you wish. Lawrence Rosen suggests doing this in his book if you want to have a secured interest in a situation where there would otherwise be only a bare license. The printer company chose to do this. People who simply put their code out there under the GPL (or any other bare license) have not done this.

The parties later settled out of court and the case did not go any further. The key is that the businesses offer created two alternative means of acceptance of it's offer to do business: pay for the commercial license, or follow the GPL.

p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it recieved contributions, the licenses continue in effect. There is one important caveat: Even a perpetual license can be revoked. See the discussion of bare licenses and contracts in Chapter 4"
--Lawrence Rosen

p56 "A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically, /a license not coupled with an interest may be revoked./ The term /interest/ in this context usually means the payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration-a contract law term not found in copyright or patent law-in order to avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests. (The concepts of /consideration/ and /promissory estoppel/ are explained more fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license that is revocable.
--Lawrence Rosen

p278 "Notice that in a copyright dispute over a bare license, the plaintiff will almost certainly be the copyright owner. If a licensee were foolish enough to sue to enforce the terms and conditions of the license, the licensor can simply revoke the bare license, thus ending the dispute. Remeber that a bare license in the absence of an interest is revocable."
--Lawrence Rosen

Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and Intellectual property Law

p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of /consideration/: ...
The GPL authors intend that it not be treated as a contract. I will say much more about this license and these two provisions in Chapter 6. For now, I simply point out that the GPL licensors are in essentially the same situation as other open source licensors who cannot prove offer, acceptance, or consideration. There is no contract."
--Lawrence Rosen

How about some opensource news for nerds: https://slashdot.org/submissio... Why do these cancer medicines never cure cancer? Ever? I've been hearing this stuff all of my life.

Hackers do not help the police.