[License-discuss] Why will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)?
pamela.chestek at opensource.org
Fri Nov 8 16:20:21 UTC 2019
I believe you have emailed the wrong entity; this is a list hosted by
the Open Source Initiative. You can contact the Free Software Foundation
at info at fsf.org.
Chair, License Review Committee
Open Source Initiative
On 11/7/2019 12:26 PM, gameonlinux at redchan.it wrote:
> Could you share your thoughts, if any, of why no one will sue
> GrSecurity ("Open Source Security" (a Pennsylvania company)) for their
> blatant violation of section 6 of version 2 of the GNU General Public
> Both regarding their GCC plugins and their Linux-Kernel patch which is
> a non-separable derivative work?
> They distribute such under a no-redistribution agreement to paying
> customers (the is the only distribution they do). If the customer
> redistributes the derivative works they are punished.
> That is: GrSecurity (OSS) has created a contract to /Defeat/ the GPL
> and has done so successfully so far. Very successfully. The GPL is
> basically the BSD license now, since such as been allowed to stand.
> This is how businesses see the GPL. They are no longer afraid: They
> will simply do what GrSecurity has done. Something that was supposed
> to stay liberated: a security patch that helped users maintain their
> privacy by not being immediately rooted when using a linux kernel on a
> GNU system; is now non-free.
> With this the GPL _fails_.
> NO ONE has sued GrSecurity. Thus they are seen as "having it right"
> "correct" "we can do this".
> Wouldn't the FSF have standing regarding the GCC plugins atleast?
> Couldn't you all rally linux-kernel copyright holders to bring a joint
> (Page 10 onward of this brief gives a good recitation of the facts and
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
More information about the License-discuss