Name: Anonymous 2021-04-25 20:54
How so?
These are true statements:
>Grsecurity sucessfully nullified the GPL.
>Stallman lost.
>It's over.
Got any arguments? The fact is that all programmers believe that as long as you distribute your changes as a patch then you can ignore the copyright on the original work and can ignore the copyright license of the original work. All programmers believe this.
No one has sued Grsecurity in the years it has been adding additional terms not existant in the GPLv2 license, including a no-redistribution term, to it's distribution of it's kernel patch and GCC plugins.
Other projects have decided to go down the same route now. It is OVER.
Share-and-share-alike is DEAD. Your bluff has been CALLED.
>RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 WL 127311 (W.D. Wash. 2000)
>Creating a "plugin" that will run and alter the in-memory running application, is also prohibited without obeying the copyright owners instructions and limitations, and creates a prohibited derivative.
For some reason, programmers are adament that if they create a patch they don't have to follow these rules. Even though a seperate program even modifying in-memory programs on only the user's machine, at the user's direction, did violate the copyright to the other program. Programmers have decided this is not relevant to source code patching.
And you haven't sued. RMS hasn't even spoken publicly on this.
It's fucking OVER.
These are true statements:
>Grsecurity sucessfully nullified the GPL.
>Stallman lost.
>It's over.
Got any arguments? The fact is that all programmers believe that as long as you distribute your changes as a patch then you can ignore the copyright on the original work and can ignore the copyright license of the original work. All programmers believe this.
No one has sued Grsecurity in the years it has been adding additional terms not existant in the GPLv2 license, including a no-redistribution term, to it's distribution of it's kernel patch and GCC plugins.
Other projects have decided to go down the same route now. It is OVER.
Share-and-share-alike is DEAD. Your bluff has been CALLED.
>RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 WL 127311 (W.D. Wash. 2000)
>Creating a "plugin" that will run and alter the in-memory running application, is also prohibited without obeying the copyright owners instructions and limitations, and creates a prohibited derivative.
For some reason, programmers are adament that if they create a patch they don't have to follow these rules. Even though a seperate program even modifying in-memory programs on only the user's machine, at the user's direction, did violate the copyright to the other program. Programmers have decided this is not relevant to source code patching.
And you haven't sued. RMS hasn't even spoken publicly on this.
It's fucking OVER.