Re: Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)?

[nipponmail]

You are incorrect. GPL version 2 section 6 states that one shall not add 
additional restrictions between the agreement between the licensee and 
further licensees. It governs that relationship vis-a-vis the protected 
Work.

GrSecurity has, indeed, stipulated an additional restrictive term.
From: You may distribute derivative works freely.
GrSecurity has forced customers to agree to: We shall not distribute the 
(non-separable) derivative work EXCEPT to our own customers (when 
required).

That is clearly an additional restrictive term.

Yes, I am a lawyer. A court would not be "tricked" by GrSecurity putting 
it's additional restrictive term in a separate writing. The license is 
instructions about what you are allowed to do with Copyright Holder's 
work; He EXPLICITLY forbade additional restrictive terms.

GrSecurity does not have a pre-existing legal right to create 
non-separable derivative works at all. The default rights are: nothing 
(all rights reservered).

On 2019-11-04 17:36, ams@xxxxxxx wrote:
> One is not under obligation to guarantee that new versions are
> distributed to someone, which also means obligations can be terminated
> for any reason.  So while grsecurity might not be doing the morally
> and ethically right thing, I do not think they are violating the GNU
> GPL.  You're still free to redistribute the patches, but grsecurity
> isn't under obligation to give you future updates.
>
> Their agreement text is located at
> https://grsecurity.net/agree/agreement_faq