On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 16:04:54 -0700, Rick wrote in message
<20170627230454.GD11085@???>:

> Quoting Bruce Perens (bruce@???):
>
> > So, what you are saying is that you are permitted to redistribute
> > the latest grsecurity patch, but that the company will as a penalty
> > disallow you from further being their customer or receiving any
> > additional versions of the patch. And this might not be written
> > down, but it's their policy.
> >
> > The punitive action is not incidental, it is a direct punishment
> > for the taking of an action which the GPL requires to be permitted.
> >
> > I don't think a judge would have an problem with seeing this as a
> > deliberate contract violation.

..I would agree if you said 'license violation.', and that would land
the parties in a copyright law dispute, as all GPL versions I've ever
seen, eliminate themselves upon any license violation.

..contract law disputes are civil law disputes, unless there is an
element of fraud, is there such an element in this patch policy?

> IMO this confuses the right to distribute a work (patchsets already
> provided) with the right to distribute entirely different works
> (patchsets produced after termination of contract). Future support
> and maintenance are just not part of a licensee's obligations under
> GPLv2, irrespective of what theory of law you're applying.

..why in the world isn't the grsecurity guys not dual-licensing?
They own copyright to their own stuff and can license it anyway
they damned please.

> As always, though, the only view that ultimately matters is the
> judge's.


--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.