To: esr@thyrsus.com
Nothing more to say? You just keep your mouth shut because you quake
in the knees at the thought of a BS libel suit from Grsec and just
want peace in your old age, while RMS tilts at windmills regarding
topics such as "Am I a Real Doctor" and "What /SHOULD/ The age of
consent REALLY be: my musings over the years" and never "Hmm what of
these blatant copyright violations that stab at the very heart of my
movement?"
Guess you're happy in you irrelevancy: which comes because you don't
do what you used to do.
My take is that my opinion doesn't matter a hill of beans, as I am
not in a position to sue Grsecurity. Linus and the FSF have all the
resources they need to be in this fight, assuming theyu want to be.
-
If the ppeople with skin in this game and the money to hire lawyers to
fight Grsecurity aren't willing to step up on the facts you've already
presented, nothing I say will make them.
I don't shrink from a fight, but I choose my battles carefully. This
doesn't look to me like a good one to be in.
-
I have never thought GPL-style reciprocal licensing was very important
to the success of open source, and never use it for new work myself.
That I hold this opinion is no secret and I'm surprised you didn't
know it. It does mean I will be much less upset than you if somebody
breaks the GPL.
You're ignoring several important secondary effects that do in fact
provide rewards for releasing.
But I'm not going to argue this point in detail, because I need to
make money today. With an open-source tool I released (reposurgeon)
that generates consulting contracts for me.
He won't say shit about grsec. He's afraid of getting sued or "doesn't care". Now he won't respond to my emails. Just like Richard Matthew Stallman won't respond to anything regarding grsec.
They're fucking frauds.
To: esr@thyrsus.com
Look at the economics from the Programmers* perspective:
If he is to set aside the enormous time and effort it takes to write a
program** he has to get something out of it.
0) "To scratch an itch" can be one of those things
But why even ever release the program in that case? It makes no
economic sense to the programmer: he already has what he wanted to
create: by his own hand; there is little reason to release it to
others.
1) To be paid in the labor of others (should they choose use the
product of his labor)
Constructively; This is why the GPL exists (especially according to
Linus, who was always adamant about "getting contributions back"): to
be paid in /kind/ instead of fiat or currency.
That is: though forgoing direct monetary remuneration: the programmer,
by choosing a share-alike license is targeting remuneration in the
form of being able to access any changes and improvements made to his
Work. That is his pay.
That's why OpenSouce exploded: because programmers believed that they
would have their hobby projects improved. This makes sense to the
high-school and undergrad college kids who actually start the
opensource projects; which later grow and grow because of the
share-alike understanding. Linus started his kernel in the same way:
during the same stage of life.
Linus hammered home time and time again that: everything's fine
as-long as the code is open. In video, in written correspondence, for
decades. So much so you could argue in court that the Standard
Practice of the "Linux"(Kernel) industry is incorporated into the
terms. Grsecurity has violated both the text of the GPL license, and
the instructions Linus has given; and the understanding that all the
programmers who voluntarily contributed their labor to Linux: and the
wider OpenSouce movement.
This choice... is not being honored. Not anymore.
ESR says I'm wrong about reasons to even make something opensource at all:
> Look at the economics from the Programmers* perspective:
> If he is to set aside the enormous time and effort it takes to write a
> program** he has to get something out of it.
>
> 0) "To scratch an itch" can be one of those things
> But why even ever release the program in that case? It makes no
> economic sense to the programmer: he already has what he wanted to
> create: by his own hand; there is little reason to release it to
> others.
You're ignoring several important secondary effects that do in fact
provide rewards for releasing.
But I'm not going to argue this point in detail, because I need to
make money today. With an open-source tool I released (reposurgeon)
that generates consulting contracts for me.
To: esr@thyrsus.com
This is what everyone says about RMS and others (linus, you, all the
known opensource guys etc) not commenting on Grsecurity:
>>81349245
"they won't pick your battle because they know it's a losing one
grsec isn't violating copyrights and isn't violating the GPL "
IE: Silence is consent. You don't want to say anything because you
don't want to be sued for libel like Bradly Spengler sued Bruce
Perens. Same with RMS. Either Grsecurity is right or All of you
opensource speakers are scared old men. RMS speaks of _EVERYTHING_
_OTHER_ than enforcing his freesoftware vision anymore. You can try
it: email rms@gnu.org on ANY topic: he'll respond. Mention Grsecurity:
he won't.
You're afraid of losing money. So you won't say anything. This is a
betrayal. Your words roped us all into this opensource thing; and you
won't back it up after we did all that work induced by you, linus,
RMS, etc. ONLY Bruce Perens has the balls to put his money where his
mouth is, out of all of you.
And yes: When you induce people to do work based on a promise of
enforcement (ex: linus) (also RMS (gcc plugins are involved in this
aswell, and RMS explicitly induced copyright transfers on condition
that the copyrights would be defended: which they are not being)) you
are liable for that.
Also all that money you made today isn't actually money.
If a weel cannot roll is it a wheel?
Money cannot buy what it was originally invented for (such is
forbidden). You're not being paid squat.
Hang on, I gotta go grab my popcorn.
Is Grsec really distributing binaries without the source?
Also who cares? their stuff wouldn't get upstreamed anyway because it breaks everything.
>>7
Hey, retard, the GPL has more terms than "U can't distribute binaries without the source". You STUPID FUCK
There is also "You cannot add ANY additional terms when distributing modifications" (Section 4 of the GPL)
Which is WHAT GRSECURITY IS DOING.
There is also "You cannot restrict others from using their rights under the GPL" (Section 6 of the GPL)
Which IS WHAT GRSECURITY _IS_ DOING (No redistribution clause in their additional terms)
Who cares.
All of us who used to use it and now don't have any security on linux because Grsecurity decided that no one would sue them.
Who cares.
The GPL was designed so that any modification of a GPL'd work would eventually be free/open to all. All of us who have contributed to Free Software care; because Free/Opensource software was built with a "we're all in this together" mindset. I make xYZ program, you make C and D, other make W M V etc; and we have a free and open system at the end of the day.
It only works if everyone believes that their work will remain open and free: and that derivatives: changes to their work: will be aswell: because that is the "payment".
Payment /IN KIND/
Grsecurity is violating that.
It modifys a GPL'd work 1000s have contributed to (both the Linux Kernel and GCC) and closes it.
Now: I know you fucking piece of shit think that it's "allowed" to do that "because it did the WORK!". But you are WRONG. Because it based it's work on SOMEONE ELSES FUCKING WORK. The person who made the ORIGINAL work sets the terms of use for his original work. YOU MAY NOT USE IT AT ALL, NOR MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS OTHERWISE AT ALL. The GPL states: No additional terms. No restrictions on distributees other than GPL.
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.