Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Mon, 04 Nov 2019 17:56:32 +0000
From:   nipponmail@firemail.cc
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of
 GCC and the linux kernel)?
In-Reply-To: <E1iRgHg-0007e0-Gd@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <b0668893d6fbfeca10a724e1c5846e92@firemail.cc>
 <E1iRgHg-0007e0-Gd@fencepost.gnu.org>
Message-ID: <f2f8761cb462b2576696c500cc57e257@firemail.cc>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

You are incorrect. GPL version 2 section 6 states that one shall not add 
additional restrictions between the agreement between the licensee and 
further licensees. It governs that relationship vis-a-vis the protected 
Work.

GrSecurity has, indeed, stipulated an additional restrictive term.
 From: You may distribute derivative works freely.
GrSecurity has forced customers to agree to: We shall not distribute the 
(non-separable) derivative work EXCEPT to our own customers (when 
required).

That is clearly an additional restrictive term.

Yes, I am a lawyer. A court would not be "tricked" by GrSecurity putting 
it's additional restrictive term in a separate writing. The license is 
instructions about what you are allowed to do with Copyright Holder's 
work; He EXPLICITLY forbade additional restrictive terms.

GrSecurity does not have a pre-existing legal right to create 
non-separable derivative works at all. The default rights are: nothing 
(all rights reservered).

On 2019-11-04 17:36, ams@gnu.org wrote:
> One is not under obligation to guarantee that new versions are
> distributed to someone, which also means obligations can be terminated
> for any reason.  So while grsecurity might not be doing the morally
> and ethically right thing, I do not think they are violating the GNU
> GPL.  You're still free to redistribute the patches, but grsecurity
> isn't under obligation to give you future updates.
> 
> Their agreement text is located at
> https://grsecurity.net/agree/agreement_faq