Is RMS alive?

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: chaosesqueteam@yahoo.com <chaosesqueteam@yahoo.com>
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)









Re: To RMS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(responded with:)


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.

PLEASE.

>Linus Torvalds has been consistent over many years that the GPL to him says that "If you make changes, you have to send the changes back to me." These statements of his have been publicized widely, and he's repeated them many times at conferences.
Yes, that's a codicil, the original Copyright owner can do that: and Linus is just that.

But this is adding demands to the GPL \u2014 there exists no requirement in the GPL that someone making changes contribute those changes back,

Correct: Linus is the original (and current) Copyright holder of Linux: he can set the licensing terms for his Property any way he wishes: distributed works cannot as they are subject to the original copyright holder's terms.

One of Linus' terms are that ALL changes must be sent back to him.
He's memorialized this requirement publicly many times, as GRSecurity agrees.

something the current Vice President of the FSF pointed out to Torvalds directly back in 2007: "I'm afraid that's not what the GPLv2 says. There's no provision whatsoever about giving anything back. Not in the spirit, not in the legal terms."

The FSF doesn't hold Copyright to Linux(R) and cannot set the terms: no matter how many suggested licenses they publish. Linus is the Copyright Holder and can and does set the terms.

The terms to the Linux Kernel are the GPL+Linus' Codicil(s): which include some allowances that the verbatium GPL does not; and additional requirements: as Linus has published.

Grsecurity doesn't allow archive.org to save their pages because they don't want it to come back to them in court that they agree that Linus has added these requirements to his original non-derivative Work.
Grsecurity is a non-seperable Derivative Work and is subject to the requirements Linus has published.
Including those of the GPL.