Grsecurity GPL Violations: Linus/FSF/SFConservancy won't defend. Claw back your copyrights. BSD-in-Practice was not the deal.

Silence is consent.

> Are there FOSS developers making decent money via Patreon, GoFundMe, whatever?

Yes, Grsecurity is making good money.
They simply added a no-redistribution agreement to their patch of the Linux Kernel.
>  ( https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ )


The FSF, Software Freedom Conservancy, and the Corporate Linux Kernel Developers all agree that this is fine (silence is consent).

>  https://twitter.com/spendergrsec/status/1293155787859206146
> Importantly, neither the FSF nor the SFC, nor in fact any actual lawyer agrees with this bizarre claim from an anonymous troll. More info about the source of the claim can be found here: https://grsecurity.net/setting_the_record_straight_on_oss_v_perens_part1
>  Thanks for doing your part, "Dr" to continue the troll's harrassment

>  >LOL. " #GRSecurity violates both the Linux kernel's copyright and the #GCC #copyright by forbidding redistribution of the patches (in their Access Agreement): which are non-seperable derivative works...


Contributors should blanket-revoke their contributions from all free-takers since they didn't agree to BSD-in-Practice. They should also claw-back any transferred copyrights from the FSF using the 30 year clawback provision in the US Copyright Act. Design of how a program works is a copyrightable aspect (Ex: How RMS designed GCC 30 years ago or so etc)

Had to repost this because the linux admins deleted the email:


>  https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/28/2518
>  The message you requested cannot be found.
> The message you requested cannot be found. The message with the url http://feisty.lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/28/2518 does not exist in the database.

Grsecurity GPL Violations: Bring a CASE act claim every time GrSecurity releases a new infringing work?