Actually, I'm writing a recommendation that customers stay away from
grsecurity because they could become contributory infringers. I have no
doubt that it's actionable, and the _lawyers_ I work with aren't nearly in
agreement with you.

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Rick Moen <rick@???> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>