GrSecurity Kernel Patches Will No Longer Be Free To The Public

[oiaohm]

And at least in the US, it is explicitly permitted by copyright law to make any such temporary copies or modifications as required to make use of the software. Installing it or loading it into RAM does not create a "copy" under copyright, in the US anyway.

Now, as in your link, the company was distributing copies of GPL software, so they were definitely making copies and bound by GPL as a contract.

That case I referenced they also argue that their development where they extend the GPL work was not covered and was kicked by the judge. Yes USA copyright law gives you the right to make copies under particular conditions. But copyright law does not void all contracts. The ruling is GPL is contract so not limited by the conditions of copyright law. The catch with GPL is since the contract includes terms for coping you are not in a normal software license case where you have voided the contract with copyright law allowance so everything in GPL remains in force even using the copyright law clause for copying.

GPL is closer to a NDA contract where you have been authorised to keep copies of stuff under particular conditions and a NDA contract like that cannot be breached by using copyright law either.

So the idea of using USA copyright law to loop hole GPL went straight out the window with that recent USA case. Nothing of copyright law in fact applies to the terms in GPL because GPL does not forbid you from doing what copyright exceptions allow and copyright law does not void conforming contracts. So this means open source licenses since they are contracts of this type are a heck load more enforceable because you have the full force of contract law to enforce them.

That's interesting. Still a lot of legal room there to work in. In would all depend on WHO performs the copy, wouldn't it. If you get your copy on a DVD from a guy in a black trenchcoat, YOU didn't make a copy. HE did.

Problem is this loop hole is not going to work. Being contract GPL allows you to run program but does not allow you to copy program or modify program without agreeing. So GPL bind you to it very quickly due to being contract so is very viral. So yes someone gives you a disk with a GPL program on it and you never modify and you run from disc you were given it on GPL contains a clause that protect you otherwise gpl binds you to the contract.

The act of running the Program is not restricted
This include in gplv2 clause 0 would not need to be there if it was not a contract because copyright law would cover it.

GPLv3 makes this clause way clear.
This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.
Please note GPLv2 means exactly the same just not written in as clear of english as GPLv3 is. Yes your permission to run is only if the program is unmodified so even in memory patching triggers GPL as a modification so requiring you to agree to terms of GPL unless you can prove the alteration is a independent work.

Since GPL is contract not copyright and contains no clauses preventing you performing the actions allowed under copyright law you have to obey every section of the GPL contract and all loop holes have to be found in the GPL contract wording itself so you cannot argue points of copyright law like fair usage as they don't apply to GPL.

Copyright law kicks in when the license on the product prevents you from doing stuff not a contract that adds extra conditions if you want to do stuff that you can perform at no cost/low cost. So the recent ruling suggests copyright law does not kick in at all on open source licenses. This could include the change to public domain after so many years as well. So open source license might be truly immortal.

GPL contract covering Copying, Modifying and Distribution is a very hard thing to loop hole so more often than not it will be enforceable.

Basically GPL being contract and not breaching any part of copyright law is a big thing. Changes how GPL has to be treated in a big way because you cannot use copyright law to get around GPL any more. Its a mistake to reference copyright law when thinking about GPL from the rulings in that past case.

[Zan Lynx]

chithanh sorry no. GPL does not grant rights if you don't agree with it. This is why GPL is a contract. One party has tried to argue in court that since they did not agree with GPL they were not bound by it only to find out that were not legally allowed to have copies of the GPL work without agreeing to GPL contract.

That's interesting. Still a lot of legal room there to work in. In would all depend on WHO performs the copy, wouldn't it. If you get your copy on a DVD from a guy in a black trenchcoat, YOU didn't make a copy. HE did.

And at least in the US, it is explicitly permitted by copyright law to make any such temporary copies or modifications as required to make use of the software. Installing it or loading it into RAM does not create a "copy" under copyright, in the US anyway.

Now, as in your link, the company was distributing copies of GPL software, so they were definitely making copies and bound by GPL as a contract.

[oiaohm]

chithanh sorry no. GPL does not grant rights if you don't agree with it. This is why GPL is a contract. One party has tried to argue in court that since they did not agree with GPL they were not bound by it only to find out that were not legally allowed to have copies of the GPL work without agreeing to GPL contract.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/13/gnu_gpl_enforceable_contract/

It was in this case chithanh were the party attempted to argue they did not have to agree to the GPL contract and got told there were not allowed copies at all if that is the case.

copying, distribution and modification

Gpl the contract trigger when you do any over the above three. So GPL contract violation triggers without redistribution. Modification and internally coping do trigger GPL clauses.

Copying the software from one of your computers to another is not redistribution.
This is not redistribution and would not be covered if the contract of GPL did not clear state coping. Since copying is clearly stated you should not be copying gpl works if you don't agree with the terms of GPL imposed on you.

By the way the copyright notice is only
Copyright (C) yyyy name of author Everything else with GPL turns out to be a comment about a contract or WARRANTY status. It was presumed to be a copyright declare when GPL was thought to be under copyright law. Since GPL is under contract law is a totally different beast. So even the idea of copyright notices is wrong about GPL as GPL is not in fact copyright in many jurisdictions.

Offer and acceptance part of contract law is why GPL is a contract. GPL is a Offer if you choose to accept it you can do everything in the contract if not you have no rights in the contract at all. This is very different to a copyright license where you can in fact argue if terms stand up or not.

A unilateral contract is created when someone offers to do something "in return for" the performance of the act stipulated in the offer.^[4] In this regard, acceptance does not have to be communicated and can be accepted through conduct by performing the act.^[

Unilateral contract is the type of contract GPL is. So copying the GPL works is agreeing to the terms of the contract even if you are just copying it on your own machine. Basically you agree to GPL when you copy, distribute or modify. Do any 1 and you are bound by the terms of GPL by the recent USA court ruling.

Disagree with GPL hope you don't end up in court because act stipulated for showing agreement in to the gpl offer is copy, distribution or modification so once you have performed one those you are agreed to the contract and to follow all terms.

[chithanh]

You have all rights granted to you under the GPL even if you disagree with it. This is a very important distinction from an EULA.

You lose these rights only if you violate the GPL. Violation can happen only with at least one of:

1. removal of copyright notices
2. redistribution

Copying the software from one of your computers to another is not redistribution.

[oiaohm]

Uh, no. If this is what you actually think, then you need to read up more on copyright law.

Also you don't need to agree to the GPL for it to come into effect, it is not a EULA.

Except GPL is not copyright law only its contract as well. So limitations of copyright law does not apply to GPL and GPL is not classed the same EULA courts have ruled on that.

[chithanh]

You own 2 computers you copied program from computer 1 to computer 2 you have distributed.

Uh, no. If this is what you actually think, then you need to read up more on copyright law.

Also you don't need to agree to the GPL for it to come into effect, it is not a EULA.

[oiaohm]

I helpfully cut out the relevant part for you.

When you do not redistribute, you have full freedom 1 (except removal of copyright notices as pointed out above).

chithanh if you do not distribute you do not get to sell the product. Please note you don't have the right to make any copies without the gpl.

You own 2 computers you copied program from computer 1 to computer 2 you have distributed. The one you are missing you you can not use full freedom 1 for a patch to a gpl work either if you patch evolves making another party break GPL. This was in the recent GPL contract court case.

So it not just redistribute the GPL work it is redistributing anything derived. If you also what to get really hard how did you test your code. You distributed you copied from your harddrive to your ram to test it. Don't agree to GPL don't have the right to copy. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

This title in GPL is very clear. Basically GPL is legally bricked if you don't agree to it. You need to copy to execute unless you are a powerpc cpu that can execute straight from a rom everything else has to obey GPL or else when dealing with a GPL work or break it license.

[chithanh]

when you distribute

I helpfully cut out the relevant part for you.

When you do not redistribute, you have full freedom 1 (except removal of copyright notices as pointed out above).

[oiaohm]

Yes, I read the license. GPL-2 gives you freedom 1 in clause 2.

The only thing that GPL-2 forbids you in relation to modification is removing copyright notices per 2c) but I do not know of any case where this happened, redistribution didn't happen, and this clause was actually enforced.

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

This out of section 2 means the GPLv2 license applies to anything derived from the work unless you can prove its a independent work. So you did not read what was just after 2c. This is what makes is a problem to attempt to use some other license other than GPL and makes it illegal to use a different license to GPL unless the conditions of that text is meet. Do note the regardless of who wrote it bit. So if the license of grsecurity patches has some restriction that prevent a person follow GPLv2 combining those patches with the Linux kernel can be breach unless it can be proven that they are not derived works.

GPL forbids a lot more than just altering copyright headers. Contract law brings in entrapment. So you do an action that causes another person to break a contract and you should have know it you are now up creek because you have entrap them into breaking a contract. So grsecurity sends a party patches and they patch a kernel they provide to customers if they cannot provide customers with source code due to grsecurity conditions its both the party who used that kernel and grsecurity who in trouble.

[chithanh]

Yes, I read the license. GPL-2 gives you freedom 1 in clause 2.

The only thing that GPL-2 forbids you in relation to modification is removing copyright notices per 2c) but I do not know of any case where this happened, redistribution didn't happen, and this clause was actually enforced.