How so?
These are true statements:
Grsecurity sucessfully nullified the GPL.
Stallman lost.
It's over.
Got any arguments? The fact is that all programmers believe that as long as you distribute your changes as a patch then you can ignore the copyright on the original work and can ignore the copyright license of the original work. All programmers believe this.
No one has sued Grsecurity in the years it has been adding additional terms not existant in the GPLv2 license, including a no-redistribution term, to it's distribution of it's kernel patch and GCC plugins.
Other projects have decided to go down the same route now. It is OVER.
Share-and-share-alike is DEAD. Your bluff has been CALLED.
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 adament 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. Programmers have decided this is not relevant to source code patching.
And you haven't sued. RMS hasn't even spoken publicly on this.
It's fucking OVER.
From:
https://lawyerofgames.com/insights-into-why-hyperbola-gnu-linux-is-turning-into-hyperbola-bsd/
Another of the reasons is that the Linux kernel is no longer getting proper hardening. Grsecurity stopped offering public patches several years ago, and we depended on that for our system\u2019s security. Although we could use their patches still for a very expensive subscription, the subscription would be terminated if we chose to make those patches public.
Such restrictions goes against the FSDG principles that require us to provide full source code, deblobbed, and unrestricted, to our users.
Don't bother with grsecurity.
—Linus Torvalds
they raised the snake
the snake came back (to bite)
GPLv2
Found your problem.
Does any non-troll have a source what this is about?
>>5
I'm a mountain trill but here's some spoon feeding, https://github.com/kdave/grsecurity-patches https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2017/q2/596 .
Grsecurity is generally a mac and pax implementation and some more hardening patches, hardening is generally decreasing these abhorrent systems attack surface by maybe sacrificing speed and utility.
Mac, mandatory access controls, DOD 5200.28-STD page 20.
Pax, page exec, *bsd security(7). Known in the lisp world for breaking it but that has been worked around now.
In general /prog/rammers usually get pissed when reminded of the sorry state these systems they should own are in, completely ignoring any methods to decrease the attack surface if isn't already there. Any solutions from them are pretentious nirvana fallacies they will never get to implementing but will push on everyone else like they're retards.
All this information should help everyone in the thread given they don't know these basics.
A little more, dac is u™inx mac is multics and military like 70s os-2. This is unrelated from a lispm operating system but also from modern operating systems in general that follow a complex broken dac. Pax wasn't created by the grsecurity team but known for housing the pax team and integrating it, the migrations also aren't original to pax, it's just used for referring to a set of hardening techniques that generally have to do with pages.
Is there actually something new to this, or is this the usual banter coming to this board putting a big bait for everyone to see?
Who fucking cares if their patches apply cleanly that’s no different than them sharing the whole repo.
>>7 The latter.
>>8
They only apply cleanly for whatever specific version of the kernel that particular version of the patch is for.
Patches are derivative works "even if" they don't contain the original source code (programmers claim otherwise: because programmers are Dunning Kruger effected pieces of pompous shit who don't know what they don't know) (An example: I probably spelt the name of the effect wrong)
Section 101 of the US Copyright Act
A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work.”
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
Right to Prepare Derivative WorksOnly the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre-pare, or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of that work. The owner of a copyright is generally the author or someone who has obtained the exclusive rights from the author. In any case where a copyrighted work is used without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection will not extend to any part of the work in which such mate-rial has been used unlawfully. The unauthorized adaptation of a work may constitute copyright infringement.
>>9
This is an ongoing copyright violation which hasn't been addressed. Linus and RMS claimed that if anyone violated the license they would sue them. That is how they go us to contribute to them. RMS even had us sign over our copyrights. They're on video saying this shit.
We determentally relied on their claims and promises. Now they 1) will NOT SUE and 2) WONT SAY A FUCKING WORD ABOUT IT.
This BLATANT FUCKING COPYRIGHT VIOLATION has been going on for 5 years continiously now. They won't say SHIT.
>>10
IANAL but how does a patch "represent an original work of authorship"? It's not "an adaptation of that work" but a complement which makes no sense when not bundled with the original work.
>>12 cont.
An analogy is third-party plugins (MIT/BSD) for GNU Emacs (GPLv3).
Is there actually something new to this, or is this the usual banter coming to this board putting a big bait for everyone to see?
The latter.
This BLATANT FUCKING COPYRIGHT VIOLATION has been going on for 5 years continiously now.
You need to fix your bot using this failure, the training context is right there and vary obvious.
>>10
A patch is both a derivative work: and subject to the original work's copyright
AND an original work of authorship: with it's own copyright.
So lets say there are 3 persons:
A - Linus "The Faggot" Torvalds
B - Bradly "The Maverik" Spengler
C - Consumer Luser.
A makes a Work.
B makes an annotation/modification/elaboration/revision/editorialization based on A's Work.
C downloads it. C must obey the copyright of B and A.
B must obey the copyright of A.
In this situation, the Grsecurity situation. B is not obeying the copyright of A; and it is not possible for C to obey the copyright of A and B at the same time as the terms conflict: and C is well aware of this. Hence the possibility of contributory copyright infringement on C's part.
annotation/modification/elaboration/revision/editorialization
You changed the definition of "(CODE)PATCH". KYS