I need someone to do an illegal for me, upload these fonts in a zip to any pomf clone and post link here pls kthx X3.

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-ms-fonts/

Having defeated a defamation claim for speculating that using Grsecurity's Linux kernel hardening code may expose you to legal risk under the terms of the GPLv2 license, Bruce Perens is back in court.

This time, he's demanding Bradley Spengler \u2013 who runs Open Source Security Inc and develops Grsecurity \u2013 foots his hefty legal bills, after Spengler failed to successfully sue Perens for libel.

Perens, a noted figure in the open source community, and his legal team from O'Melveny & Myers LLP \u2013 as they previously told The Register \u2013 want to be awarded attorneys' fees under California's anti-SLAPP statute, a law designed to deter litigation that aims to suppress lawful speech.

That deterrence takes the form of presenting unsuccessful litigants with the bill for the cost of defending against meritless claims.

"Plaintiffs Open Source Security, Inc. and Bradley Spengler sued Defendant Bruce Perens to bully him from expressing his opinions that Plaintiffs' business practices violate Open Source licensing conditions and to discourage others from expressing the same opinions," Perens' latest filing, submitted to a US district court in San Francisco today, declared.

"Rather than allowing the public to judge Plaintiffs' contrary opinions through public debate, Plaintiffs tried to 'win' the argument on this unsettled legal issue by suing him."

[...]

Perens is asking for $667,665.25 in fees, which covers 833.9 hours expended on the litigation by numerous attorneys and a $188,687.75 success fee agreed upon to allow Perens to retain representation he might not otherwise have been able to afford.

http://perens.com/2018/02/08/bruce-perens-seeks-mandatory-award-of-legal-fees-for-his-defense-in-open-source-security-inc-and-bradley-spengler-v-bruce-perens/

Bruce Perens issues an advisory regarding the GRSecurity copyright issue:
https://perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/
<blockquote>
Warning: Grsecurity: Potential contributory infringement and breach of contract risk for customers

It\u2019s my strong opinion that your company should avoid the Grsecurity product sold at grsecurity.net because it presents a contributory infringement and breach of contract risk.

Grsecurity is a patch for the Linux kernel which, it is claimed, improves its security. It is a derivative work of the Linux kernel which touches the kernel internals in many different places. It is inseparable from Linux and can not work without it. it would fail a fair-use test (obviously, ask offline if you don\u2019t understand). Because of its strongly derivative nature of the kernel, it must be under the GPL version 2 license, or a license compatible with the GPL and with terms no more restrictive than the GPL. Earlier versions were distributed under GPL version 2.

Currently, Grsecurity is a commercial product and is distributed only to paying customers. My understanding from several reliable sources is that customers are verbally or otherwise warned that if they redistribute the Grsecurity patch, as would be their right under the GPL, that they will be assessed a penalty: they will no longer be allowed to be customers, and will not be granted access to any further versions of Grsecurity. GPL version 2 section 6 explicitly prohibits the addition of terms such as this redistribution prohibition.

By operating under their policy of terminating customer relations upon distribution of their GPL-licensed software, Open Source Security Inc., the owner of Grsecurity, creates an expectation that the customer\u2019s business will be damaged by losing access to support and later versions of the product, if that customer exercises their re-distribution right under the GPL license. This is tantamount to the addition of a term to the GPL prohibiting distribution or creating a penalty for distribution. GPL section 6 specifically prohibits any addition of terms. Thus, the GPL license, which allows Grsecurity to create its derivative work of the Linux kernel, terminates, and the copyright of the Linux Kernel is infringed. The contract from the Linux kernel developers to both Grsecurity and the customer which is inherent in the GPL is breached.

As a customer, it\u2019s my opinion that you would be subject to both contributory infringement and breach of contract by employing this product in conjunction with the Linux kernel under the no-redistribution policy currently employed by Grsecurity.

I have previously endorsed a company that distributes enhanced versions of GPL software to paying customers, but that company operated differently (and in a way that I would recommend to Grsecurity). They did not make any threat to customers regarding redistribution. They publicly distributed their commercial version within 9 months to one year after its customer-only distribution.

I told you this would happen, you all said it wouldn't, I assured you he would go full commercial within a year. He did. --MikeeUSA

GRSecurity removes public testing patch - goes full commercial.

http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/06/04/24

>"Don't worry about it, there's nothing for a "grateful" user like yourself
>to download anymore. Boy, if I had more "grateful" users like yourself
>obsessed with harrassing us on Twitter, Reddit, and IRC so that they
>can go around and paint themselves as some kind of victim, I wouldn't
>know what to do with myself.
>
>-Brad"

The solution?
As I said before, Copyright licenses (like any license) are freely revocable unless barred by estoppel. The GPL v2 lacks a no-revocation clause thus estoppel would be more difficult to argue (additonally none of the "agreeing parties" have ever met each other).

BEARD-O

Let's talk about p2p encryption, /g/
How is Tox coming along?
Are there any better encrypted p2p messengers?

SURE IS SUMMER IN HERE

GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute (by threatening them with a non-renewal of a contract to recive this patch to the linux kernel.)
(GRsecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel (it is a patch))

People who have dealt with them have attested to this fact:
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/censorship_linux_developer_steals_page_from_randi/
"You will also lose the access to the patches in the form of grsec not renewing the contract.
Also they've asked us (a Russian hosting company) for $17000+ a year for access their stable patches. $17k is quite a lot for us. A question about negotiating a lower price was completely ignored. Twice." -- fbt2lurker

And it is suggested to be the case here aswell:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4gxdlh/after_15_years_of_research_grsecuritys_rap_is_here/
"Do you work for some company that pays for Grsecurity? If so then would you kindly excersise the rights given to you by GPL and send me a tarball of all the latest patches and releases?" -- lolidaisuki
"sadly (for this case) no, i work in a human rights organization where we get the patches by a friendly and richer 3rd party of the same field. we made the compromise to that 3rd party to not distribute the patches outside and as we deal with some critical situations i cannot afford to compromise that even for the sake of gpl :/
the "dumber" version for unstable patches will make a big problem for several projects, i would keep an eye on them. this situation cannot be hold for a long time" -- disturbio



Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) part, with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has with the original licensor?

Devuan, the once devil-may-care total fork of Debian, once linked to virulent internet sexism and gamer-gate affiliated image forums by Debian Developer Russel Coker, has mulled the option of enacting a Code of Conduct when one of its female members was insulted:

> https://botbot.me/freenode/devuan/2016-05-25/?page=2
>jaromil today i was scrolling through http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_...
>golinux Well, I tried but couldn't find anybody. Then nextime popped up
>jaromil jeez. we need to take precautions. and also I get the point from Sarah Mei we need a code of conduct on-line and later for on-site http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2015/02/01/the-fos...
> its never too early for that
>
>golinux One can only control one's own actions. ;)
>
>jaromil ah the wise one
...
>Wizzup he is doxed?
>jaromil that's him. we have a dossier yes

Devuan has been criticized for taking a "who gives a damn" and "real admins do it all by hand themselves every install" attitude towards security hardening scripts, and dispise in particular any mention of the "bastille" linux hardening script (originally funded by Mandrake Linux).

Why /g/ when there's /tech/?