/g/ - Technolo/g/y

cirno_7 jpeg
(250.65 KB, 1448x2048)

cirno__2 jpg
(78.5 KB, 850x605)

 >>/79492216/
> ( silence is consent)
And that's all we hear from the FSF, SFConservancy, Linus, LKML, etc: because they DO agree (effectivly) with Grsecurity.

As Bradly Spengler identified:
>  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...

To point out Grsecurity is violating a clause in the GPL, THE CENTRAL CLAUSE (share and share alike): is to be a mysoginist, woman-hating, girl loving, pedo.

So the FSF, SFConservancy, and LKML don't "go" there.

81x0u83lcUL._RI_ jpg
(423.68 KB, 2560x1920)

57_cab623ab-ba... jpg
(43.43 KB, 380x500)

This is about which FOSS devs are making bank off of FOSS. There are TWO(2):

*Linus Trovalds
*Bradly Spengler.

*Linus Trovalds is paid 1.3 million dollars per year likely under contract to forgoe the excercise a legal right he has: to sue violators of his copyright.

If he violated that agreement, (identified) third-party beneficiaries to that contract could attempt to seek to recovery of whatever liquidated damages are specified in that contract.

*Bradly Spengler simply adds a No-Redistribution clause to his linux-kernel patch. As he notes: the FSF and _SFConservancy_ all support him in this (it's 2020, he started doing it years ago, they have said nothing against him)

>  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...

They both make millions from leveraging YOUR work. It's a con game.

 >>/79494901/ →
 >>/79493254/ →
>  >If you modify a Work, but then just publish the modifications (ie: "change the word in page X to FOO", "add this paragraph to page Y") that is also a NON-SEPERABLE derivative work, that the Copyright owner of the parent Work you are changing has rights to control/disallow/etc. EVEN THOUGH you might only be distributing your "changes").

> Do you have a source for that claim? That seems pretty strongly at odds from what I've heard about derivative works.

Read a Copyright casebook.
"Oh it's just a claim, bla bla bla"
No it's straight from copyright 101, stupid fucking white FUCK.

You really think that you aren't creating a derivative work based on another work when you "just" publish your changes, you piece of fucking shit.

As I said: white men do not accept any of this, but it is the law. Read a line of cases.
What you "heard" was wrong. There are no "clever" workarounds you white fuck.

> DURRR TEACH ME COPYRIGHT 101 FOR FREE
Go enroll in lawschool fucktard.

> Do you have a source for that claim? That seems pretty strongly at odds from what I've heard about derivative works.

    What you "heard" was garbage from other white fucking idiots, not from lawyers.

 >>/79493254/ →
> CCIIITTAATTIOONN NEEEDDEDDD!!!!!
> U R LYING, 
> DURRR WHOITE POWHARRRR
17 U.S.C. §101.:
”[a] ‘derivative work’ as a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgement, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ‘derivative work’.” 17 U.S.C. §101.


> A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ‘derivative work’

> A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ‘derivative work’

> A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ‘derivative work’

> A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ‘derivative work’