On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 17:01:32 -0700, Rick wrote in message
<20170628000131.GB28185@???>:

> Quoting Bruce Perens (bruce@???):
>
> > It doesn't, unless you have understanding customers who just don't
> > redistribute because they want you to stay in business. But
> > grsecurity doesn't work that way, it is alleged. It is alleged that
> > they tell customers that if they redistribute, they will no longer
> > be allowed to be a customer or get the next version.
> >
> > IMO that's violating the GPL.
>
> IMO, terminating a customer relationship and contractual entitlement
> to future releases is nothing like a 'restriction on the recipients'
> exercise of the rights granted herein' within the meaning of GPLv2
> clause 6, because zero impediment is thereby imposed on licensee's
> lawful exercise of licence rights. Commercial support and updates are
> nowhere guaranteed by the licence terms.
>
> You obviously disagree. Judges would get to decide, provided the
> claim were ever adjudicated, but I think that outcome's wildly
> improbable because plaintiffs aren't dumb enough to bring such cases.

..never underestimate the accidental wisdom of dumb people... ;oD

--
..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.