Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752571AbdG3GD1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jul 2017 02:03:27 -0400 Received: from lang.hm ([66.167.227.134]:40524 "EHLO bifrost.lang.hm" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750812AbdG3GD0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jul 2017 02:03:26 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 483 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sun, 30 Jul 2017 02:03:26 EDT Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 22:55:22 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@dlang-laptop To: "Paul G. Allen" cc: linux-kernel Subject: Re: Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <6261acc7cc854161158181d1ecfc7682@redchan.it> <20170729200726.6qxlnh7mmfpfxkq3@thunk.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.1 (DEB 209 2017-03-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1438 Lines: 32 On Sat, 29 Jul 2017, Paul G. Allen wrote: >> It's not even clear that there is infringement. The GPL merely >> requires that people who have been distributed copies of GPL'ed code >> must not be restricted from further redistribution of the code. It >> does not require that that someone who is distributing it must >> available on a public FTP/HTTP server. what I have seen reported is that they are adding additional restrictions, that if any of their customers redistribute the source, their contract with grsecurity is terminated. > If there is something to this (that GRSecurity is somehow in violation > of the GPL), then it would probably be a very good idea for someone > (the community, Red Hat, etc.) to protect the kernel. From my > understanding, at least in America, protections under any license or > contract (especially dealing with copyright and trademark > infringement) are only enforceable as long as the party with the > rights enforce the license/contract/agreement. You are thinking of Trademarks, they must be defended or you loose them. Contracts and Licenses do not need to be defended at every chance or risk loosing them. > There is also something in law called "setting a precedent" and if the > violating of the Linux license agreement is left unchecked, then quite > possibly a precedent could be set to allow an entire upstream kernel > to be co-opted. This is a potential problem. David Lang