Here the discussion gets a little more heated as the crowd keeps simply repeating themselves and ignoring all legal arguments. -------------------------- >>54

Here the discussion gets a little more heated as the crowd keeps simply repeating themselves and ignoring all legal arguments. -------------------------- >>54844263 >Which was not broken since the sub-licensee still has all the privileges and obligations given to them by the GPL. Incorrect in practice: the sublicensees have been effectively prevented from exercising the right given to them by the original licensor (linux devs) by the action of the intimediary (grsecurity). In this case, since spengler is working to frustrate the purpose of the grant given by the original licensor the court may very well nullify his right to seek cover of the license: IE: he has acted in bad faith in attempting (successfully here) to DENY a permission granted to the sublicensee by the original licensor and thus has violated the license and can be sued by the original licensor for copyright infringement. (Not to mention the sublicensee for tort violations). Spengler has interfered with the relationship between the licensor (the rightsholder) and the sublicensee (likely a quazi-contractual relationship). Why is this so hard for you to understand? Please, go to law school or keep you mouth shut. And other people here, why is it that you choose to believe people who have not been to law school and who have not passed the bar, over me, who has done both? Why? They read ONE document, the agreement. I've read books. Yet you decide that THEY know what they are talking about? That the written grant exists in a vacume. It's ONE FUCKING PAGE. That's a completely integrated, four corners, covers all cases document to you people? Do you even know what I just said?