armenianapple
In reality, to do what you mention in such an example is illegal.
Bullshit. Grsecurity has been doing exactly that for 5 years. Not a peep from Linus Torvalds, Richard Matthew Stallman, nor Eric S. Raymond, and not a peep from the thousands of linux kernel copyright holders.
All programmers agree: Aslong as you distribute your changes to the source code as a PATCH file: you do not have to give a damn about the copyright. You can do whatever you want.
You haven't proven them wrong.
Instead, what would be better is a specific license written up by competent lawyers that outlines in very specific language exactly what derivative works can be created and for what uses.
The GPLv2, which is the linux kernel license, says you can only make derivative works and distribute them if you distribute those derivative works under the terms of the GPLv2, and not any additional terms not already existing in the text of the GPLv2 license.
The license also states that you may nor add any restrictions on the "rights" granted in the license, and you may not restrict redistribution.
Grsecurity has added additional terms (their "Access Agreement") which adds a promise not to redistribute their changes to the linux kernel, under a penalty of loss of "access" and a forfeit of whatever monies were paid for future "access". Their additional terms they are distributing their source code changes to the linux kernel also include a disclaimer of liability if the revocation of "access" harms the distributee. Additionally the distributee must agree to a forum selection clause and a choice of law clause.
So that shows that you do not know what you are talking about. Grsecurity is distributing their modifications to the Linux Kernel and the GCC compiler as PATCHES (they are not distributing them WITH the linux kernel: you have to download the linux kernel source, and then you use a program to "inject" their changes into that code, then you recompile and you have /their/ version of the linux kernel just like it is on their executive development machines at their enterprise), and ARE indeed adding additional terms including a term that forbids redistribution of the changes they have made under a penalty and forfieture.
And they can do this. They haven't been sued in the 5 years they've been doing it. So you are obviously WRONG.
The programmers are right. That bullshit about "derivative works" and "collective works" is just that: lawyer fucking bullshit. Programmers have decided that aslong as that crap is in a SEPERATE patch it can't be touched by your bullshit lawyer bullshit. Understand?
So basically you admit that Grsecurity is NOT violating the linux kernel license. Since you can't say it. You just go on and on about other crap.
Bet you won't even respond. Shut down. Boom.