>How exactly are they doing this without either violating the GPL or failing to keep their patches secret? Here are some additional arguments by lay people def

>How exactly are they doing this without either violating the GPL or failing to keep their patches secret? Here are some additional arguments by lay people defending GRSecurity and rebuttals based in an understanding of the law (which are rejected with bays and hollers from the lay crowd who seem to believe that an NDA makes the GPL equal in fact to the BSD license grant): --------------- >>54842745 >>54842791 >>54842820 There is a legal term for this. It's called acting in bad faith. That often gets your contract nullified. Here there is a license grant. Spengler is acting in bad faith to frustrate its purpose. It does not matter if he is breaking legs, threatening to expose secrets, or threatining to raise prices to exorbidant rates, or to cease sending the patches: What matters is that his goal is to deny the sublicensee the right given to the sublicensee by the original licensor, and that he has obtained that goal via his actions (the threats here). He has frustrated the purpose of the agreement (the grant) he had with the original licensor, and thus the grant fails. In other words: he has violated the license. It's very simple, I don't know why some here do not understand it, it's like you never graduated law school nor passed the bar. The courts are not dumb, they've seen people try to be "clever" like this before for well over 100 years. Just because some here have never heard of any of it doesn't mean what they then grind together their uneducated brain is correct (even though they will swear to high heaven it is, cuz it makes sence to them, centuries of caselaw and even black letter law be damned).