/tech/ - Technology

Buffer overflow

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Drawing x size canvas

Board Rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Magrathea | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images

(105.89 KB 866x765 ss3.png)
RMS "Approves" GRSecurity GPL violation, says "may" be legal, (won't take action) Anonymous 09/06/2023 (Wed) 11:20 [Preview] No. 15279
>From: Richard Stallman
>Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 08:59:56 PM EDT
>Subject: Re: Could you please sue GRSecurity.
>[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
>[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
>[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> > RMS: please. You sued Cisco.
> > Yet this is allowed? (they violate the copyright on your GCC, in addition to the Linux Kernel)
>It is not clear that they are violating the copyright on GCC. It
>looks like what they are doing may be lawful.
>We have nothing legally to do with Linux, the kernel.
>Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
>Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
>Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
>Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
(my response: )
>They are distributing non-separable derivative works to GCC under a no-redistribution agreement.
>Which is an additional restriction forbidden by the license you granted to them of your Copyrighted work (infact of your own Authorship aswell).
>>may be lawful
>See the word you used: may
>Anything may be lawful before a case of first impression is brought.
>Please bring one.
>Those patches and plugins they distribute cannot be used with anything other than GCC
>They are infact non-seperable derivative works. You have standing and reason to sue.
>Please do so.

Anonymous 09/06/2023 (Wed) 11:54 [Preview] No.15280 del
And, Yes I am a lawyer.
Yes GRSecurity is contravening the "u can't put any additional restrictions not mentioned in the text of this license" clause of the GPL; vs both the Linux Kernel and the GCC "plugins" they distribute subject to their(GRSecurity's) "no redistribution" clause (which has been effective: the source has not leaked: GRSecurity has made it's patches to the linux kernel and GCC proprietary)

The GCC "plugins" are non-separable derivative works, just as their linux-kernel patches are non-separable derivative works. They only work regarding the parent work.

Don't believe me: read the real player case then. Go on. Read it. If you even make some 3rd party program that messes with the look of the other program you can be violating the copyright on the other program. Go read the case. There are others but when I tell you people you just say "DURR WHY NOT JUST DISTRIBUTe A DiFF and GeT aRoUnD the GpL thaT wAy"

Why won't RMS sue? Because he has women lawyers surrounding him who don't want to do shit. That's actually their job: to dissuade RMS etc from taking any Copyright action and upsetting the "GPL-as-effectivly-BSD-Licensed" status-quoe that emerged.

The only courageous one was Bruce Perens who fought abit of the good fight.
Note: ANY of these federal copyright lawsuits would cost probably half-a-million or more for the Copyright owner to prosecute.
RMS's foundation doesn't want to do it.
GPL rots in it's grave.

Top | Catalog | Post a reply | Magrathea | Return