Re: General Discussion about GPLness

From: whywontyousue
Date: Sun Feb 23 2020 - 07:56:57 EST

If you don't understand English, it will be difficult to get any points across to you. I will try

In simple terms:
1) Look up the court case "Universal City Studios Inc v Reimerdes,"

2) In this case someone else' software was running at the same time as the other persons software, and made changes, extensions _ONLY_ when running. Just like a non-gpl'd (or gpl'd) module might make changes and extensions.

3) The court found this was obviously a modification of the Copyright owners Work and barred in on summary judgement.

That is why you're not allowed to do as you wish with non-gpl'd modules: the US Copyright Jurisprudence forbids marring a Copyright owners _running_ _in_memory_ property against his wishes: it's a Copyright violation.

That is the reason: people don't want to get sued. That is the ONLY reason. That's it.

The thing is, the linux copyright owners are wimps and won't sue anyone even for blatant infringement; so what is the conversation about?

It's like if you were in Russia, and you were copying DVDs. No one is going to punish you for it: so what is there to discuss? The US Copyright owners don't have the rocks to Invade Russia, Start a Nuclear Winter, and DESTROY you for your Copyright Infringement in Russia.

JUST AS, the DOG LIKE Linux Copyright owners don't have the BALLS to risk being blackballed from the programming industry for DEFENDING THEIR COPYRIGHT.

The GPL ___IS___ dead. The FSF doesn't protect GCC copyright, and is opposed to taking any action against blantant in-writing infringers (OpenSourceSecurity (Grsecurity)) of GCC, just as the LINUX COMMUNITY is OPPOSED to taking ANY action to defend its Copyrights and moves to PUNISH those rightsholders who do.

And another thing: court is for lawyers. Whenever the lawyers take over
something they don't (want to) understand the end is near ...

I'm a lawyer and a programmer, got something to say?


How about talking with real names?
Why would I do that? Tell me? What is in it for me?
I can stand here, in the forest, taking shots at your bullshit. Safe. Secure. My words and their veracity the only measure.

But if I reveal the messanger; you'll just attack the messenger.
Tell me how _I_ benifit from telling YOU my name. Tell me.
Is it some sort of stupid werkin man white man bravado?

I have no idea why you spam rms or bruce
with this, as the question is all about _one_ project, namely linux-kernel.

You sent a message to the LKML "Hey why can't I violate the GPL? Let's just do it!". IE: a licensing discussion. RMS and Bruce Perens, the founder of the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Initiative are relevant parties to the discussion.


I'd suggest taking them off this topic again ...
You also suggested I reveal my identity on the internet...


On 2020-02-23 12:33, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
Dear whoeveryouare,

can you please state in a clearer form (more understandable to non-native
english talkers) what your true opinion on the topic is?
And in case you did not understand what I was saying, here is clearer form of
my opinion:

A kernel module with another license (be it whatsoever) is _no_ modification
of the kernel, but an extension of its features. If feature-extension is
against the GPL (which I seriously doubt) then I would say "go back onto your
trees". Because the human race and evolution is about little else than
feature-extension.

And another thing: court is for lawyers. Whenever the lawyers take over
something they don't (want to) understand the end is near ...

How about talking with real names? I have no idea why you spam rms or bruce
with this, as the question is all about _one_ project, namely linux-kernel.
I'd suggest taking them off this topic again ...

--
Regards,
Stephan



On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 11:03:56 +0000
whywontyousue@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Dear Stephan von Krawczynski;

Universal City Studios Inc v Reimerdes, piece of shit.

"[The court] reasoned that Ferret consumers who used the Ferret as a
plug-in to the Real Player altered the Real Player user interface by
adding the Snap search button or replacing it with the Stream box search
engine button. The court concluded that the plaintiff raised sufficently
serious questions going to the merits of its claims to warrant an
injunction pending trial"

Want to violate the linux kernel copyright, you fucking piece of shit?
Yes you do. Yes modifying the running kernel with violating pieces is
copyright infringement, you fucking piece of shit. Yes you should be
sued. Just as Open Source Security (Grsecurity) should be sued for their
violations (of section 4 and 6 of the linux kernel copyright license
(they're also violating the GCC copyrights too)).

Will they be sued? Will you be sued? No: Linux copyright holders are
scared little wageslave worker bees. They aren't going to sue you;
sorry. Why are you even announcing you intent to violate the copyright?
Why even give these dogs such intellectual deference?

I wish OpenSourceSecurity would be sued. I wish you would be sued. But
linux WERKIN MAHN wage slave piece of shit idiots won't do it: I hate
them much more than I hate the violators. Complete Dogs. They could move
from strenght to strenght, from victory to victory; but they're scared
for their "JEHRB"s. I have to say: white men are pathetic scum. If Linux
was built by others there would rightfully be lawsuits.



> Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> you may have already heard about it or not (several times in the past),
> non-kernel devices run into a symbol export problem as soon as
> something is
> only exported GPL from the kernel.
> Currently there is a discussion regarding zfs using this call chain:
>
> vdev_bio_associate_blkg (zfs) -> blkg_tryget (kernel) ->
> percpu_ref_tryget
> (kernel) -> rcu_read_unlock (kernel) -> __rcu_read_unlock (kernel)
>
> where __rcu_read_[lock|unlock] is a GPL symbol now used by (not GPL
> exported)
> percpu_ref_tryget.
>
> That this popped up (again) made me think a bit more general about the
> issue.
> And I do wonder if this rather ideologic problem is on the right track
> currently. Because what the kernel tries to do with the export GPL
> symbol
> stuff is to prevent any other licensed software from _using_ it in
> _runtime_.
> It does not try to prevent use/copy of the source code inside another
> non-gpl
> project.
> And I do think that this is not the intention of GPL. If it were, then
> 100% of
> all mobile phones on this planet are illegal. All of them use GPL
> software
> from non-gpl software, be it kernel modules or apps - and I see no
> difference
> in the two. The constructed difference between kernel mode software and
> user-space software is pure ideology. Because during runtime everything
> is
> just call-chained.
> Which means if you fopen() a file in user-space it of course uses GPL
> symbols
> down in the chain somewhere. The contents of the opened file are not
> heaven-sent.
> If you/we follow the current completely ideology-driven GPL strategy
> then I am
> all for completely giving up this whole project. In real world you
> simply
> cannot use such a piece of software. The success of linux during the
> last
> years (i.e. decade) is not based on the pure GPL strategy, but on the
> successful interaction between linux and non-GPL software.
> Just think of the billions of smartphones all using a non-gpl firmware
> (underneath, and there is no GPL version at all), the kernel (with
> non-gpl
> modules) and apps (quite some of which are non-gpl).
> This is only one prominent example, but there are lots of others.
> In the end it all sums up to one simple question:
> Can one _use_ GPL software during runtime as a base for own projects of
> any
> license type or not? We are not talking about _copying_ gpl code, we
> are
> talking about runtime use.
> If runtime use is generally allowed, then the export gpl symbol stuff
> inside
> the kernel code is nonsense. Because to use the kernel you must be
> allowed to
> call it, no matter from where.
> Hit me.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Stephan