This is what everyone agrees on: Grsecurity can do as it pleases with
Or to put it in more concrete terms:
- - -
Look, when Grsecurity decideds to add additional terms between it and
it's customers: that's a business decision, protected by American
Business Law. Your copyright bullshit doesn't override that.
Sure, if Grsecurity was operating as a charity it might have to abide
by the linux kernel license and not add additional terms when
distributing it's changes to the linux kernel and the compiler.
But it's not. It's operating as a Business. It can add any additional
terms it wants when distributing for pay to it's Customers. This is a
Fundamental american freedom as confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Additionally Grsecurity did it's due dilligence by having an attorney
from the Patent Bar look over it's business plan and the Patent Bar
attorney found no copyright problems: American Business law gives an
absolute right to conduct Business with whatever customers one wants
to; and to cut off any customers one wants to at anytime: INCLUDING as
a forewarned penalty if an act of redistribution to non-customers
It doesn't matter what linus' copyright rights are to his work, nor
what his license supposidly allows. American Business Law allows
Grsecurity to add whatever additional terms it wants to when working
with IT'S CUSTOMERS. It has chosen to add: No redistribution, Forum is
Penn. State, Law is Penn. Law, No liability if penalty for illicit
redistribution is enacted.
Grsecurity has the RIGHT to protect it's PROPERTY: which are the
changes it has chosen to make to the Linux Kernel and the GCC
compiler. It does NOT matter what linus thinks his copyright means. It
doesn't mean anything.
Which is WHY linus hasn't spoken up: He knows he has no legs to stand
on: his copyright isn't worth trash. Same with RMS and the Free
Software Foundation and their GCC compiler: Their copyright isn't
All Programmers Agr