On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:33:35 -0700, Bruce wrote in message
<CAK2MWOu78Yh52uBSLVv_u5gwej+1QypW1JRmZfkDNHJ4SF1uBg@???>:

> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 2:27 PM, parazyd@??? <parazyd@???>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > There is very little ground to actually make up a court case.
> > Nobody has been blocked yet, and nobody has publicly
> > (re)distributed the non-public patches.
>
>
> Because grsecurity.net's stated policy (which could also be called
> "threat") has created a chilling effect upon such redistribution. IMO
> that is enough to be actionable.
>
> I have a customer who does paid distribution of enhanced GPL
> software, but they don't make the threat and they put everything in
> the public within 9 months to a year after distribution to their paid
> customers. So, they can get away with that, but once the threat is
> known, IMO it's a violation.

..I agree this violation is actionable, FWIW.

--
..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.