- Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-general] Temporary moderation
by Giancarlo Razzolini 03 Aug '17

03 Aug '17

Hi All, Due to an influx of offtopic and unsolicited emails, this list is on temporary moderation. We hope to be able to remove this shortly. Cheers, Giancarlo Razzolini

1 0

Re: [arch-general] MikeeUSA -- Notice Bruce Perens has NO response (nor does Moglen). [Was: Re: GrSecurity]
by esodnencaocrefsdv＠aaathats3as.com 03 Aug '17

03 Aug '17

Malformed ascii art saying "Don't feed the trolls" IE: Can't attack the message, attack the man. Because White Men Programmers simply do not know what they do not know and take proper, correct, legal analysis from a license attorney dealing with a relevant issue as "trolling". Here's a response from another attorney: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2017-July/044040.html https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/29/128 Notice Bruce Perens has NO response. Neither does Professor Moglen who apparently forgot to include a no-revocation clause in version 2 of the GPL when he drafted it, thus keeping open the possibility of any rights-holder to unilaterally recind their grant at any time for any reason so-long as they did not make a relied-upon communication to the grantee speaking otherwise. (seemingly** completely negligent drafting of the document) (a no-revocation clause would atleast make it easier to claim estopple and prevent unilateral revocation*) (Notice that the later edition; v3 (which linux is not licensed under) rectify this ommission (yes this is the main reason v3 had to be drafted, the pantent issue is a foil)) But Bruce and Moglen are friends (and both look down on Hans Reiser; feeling disparagingly about his work because Hans Reiser obeyed the dictats of his God regarding the adulterous behavior of the wife Nina, and then further, Hans did not accept any other ruler/judge/power etc (thus rejecting the plea agreement)) thus Moglen stays silent as Bruce Perens libels me. They have their square glasses on, they love their civilization that raises the woman above the man, that makes the man a draft animal of the woman, and keeps the man's love: the young girl***, from him. Bruce Perens and Professor Moglen have adopted the white man's belief system: That the man is the beast upon which the woman rightly rides; (rather than the Overlord (ba'al) of the female). Bruce Perens, Moglen, etc look down on those who see beauty where it truly resides: in the young girl***. Bruce Perens and Moglen are thus feel Superior for spurning what is actually good and embracing a pale shadow that seeks to collapse upon them. *no gaurentee however... this is an inherent right of a property owner... to recind unilateral grants,control his property, alienate it as he wished ** we do not know the requirements that the Client privately communicated for the drafting of the document ***( taking girl children as brides is permitted by the God under Deuteronomy 22, 28-29, hebrew ) Hans Reiser did nothing wrong according to the Book of the Law (Deuteronomy). Still, he stays strong. First A victim of false love Now A prisoner of conscience. On 2017-08-03 05:01, John Morris wrote: > At the risk of lowering the signal to noise on this list even more, I'd > like to note that about seven minutes before this new nym posted here > it > posted the same text to the Fedora users list. There was exactly one > reply. I won't spoil it, go look it up because it worked. > > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng(a)lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

1 0

[arch-general] Malformed URL when plugging in External HDD
by Junayeed Ahnaf 02 Aug '17

02 Aug '17

Hello, I have an external hard disk and when I plug it into KDE arch I see the name of it, when I click on it , I see the disk spinning but I can't open the content of the disk. Sometimes, I see error like "Malformed URL" in a dialog box. However, I can use the disk completely fine on Arch GNOME and Windows. So I think it's my KDE setup which has some error. Can anyone help me diagnose what is going on ? Thanks N

5 6

[arch-general] Yes I am an attorney. - Re: [DNG] Identity of OP (Software written by contractors and the 'work for hire') concept
by nisus＠redchan.it 01 Aug '17

01 Aug '17

Yes I am a licensed attorney. No I am not going to give you my registration number nor am I going to show you my bar card. I'm sure you will keep on libeling me... All my legal analysis has been correct however, you might ponder why that is so... Rick Moen and Adam Borowski: I am a licensed attorney. My legal analysis of the GRSecurity situation is correct. I am telling you to cease libeling me by spreading false rumors. You seem to think because it is your belief that I oppose you on some un-related social issue that it is just *impossible* for me to have passed an exam at some point. Others think it impossible, for a similar reason, for me to be a programmer, or a 3d video-game level architect, or a texture artist, or a pixel artist, hobby musician, etc etc. They are wrong, so are you. I am all these things. From programmer, to artist, to attorney. > (in response to:) > Author: Rick Moen > Date: 2017-07-29 19:43 UTC > To: dng > Subject: Re: [DNG] Software written by contractors and the 'work for > hire' concept > Quoting Adam Borowski (kilobyte@???): > > [falsely claiming to be an attorney:]> > >> Isn't this illegal in the US? > > A false statement that one is an attorney isn't (as far as I know). > > Giving legal advice without being a licensed attorney in the applicable jurisdiction is, that being a violation of one's state Unauthorized[1] Practice of Law statute. > > There's an important fine point, though, about what is and isn't giving > legal advice. To be in violation, one must be performing acts reserved > to attorneys in consultation with clients or prospective clients about > their specific legal situations. (Discussing this matter further would > veer too far off-topic, IMO, so I'm keeping it short. Please talk to me > offlist if you wish.) > > [1] I'd normally write 'unauthorised', but it's a proper noun. ;-> > http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/misc.html#english

2 1

Re: [arch-general] Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity - Two options that can be used in concert or separately
by nisus＠redchan.it 01 Aug '17

01 Aug '17

Thank you Mr. Rankin for saying this. Bruce Perens blocked me* (also calling me a "fool" later to a 3rd party) after I started to brainstorm the defenses that would be raised about a week or two ago: letting everyone in the world know what he thought of me for mentioning laches etc. Such talk is naivete to him and he "doesn't suffer fools willingly". Brainstorming what defenses the opposition will raise is the thinking of a naive fool according to Bruce Perens. I also noticed that Bruce Perens friend Professor Moglen hasn't commented, instead opting to sit and silently judge, but I did bring up the fact that GPL v2 lacks a no-revocation clause, thus (barring estopple) said license can be revoked at any time by the grantor. Which is the actual reason v3 of the GPL needed to be drafted (the patents issue being a foil). I guess Professor Moglen (RMS, ESR) and the rest don't want too many people to know about that part either and thus would rather downplay anything else I have written. To be clear: Rights-Holders can sue GRSecurity for the copyright violation stemming from the flagrant violation of section 6 of the license. Rights-Holders can also revoke GRSecurity's license to their code by notice and then sue them if they continue to make derivative works of said work. So Rights-Holders have two options there at their disposal. The GPL v2, by itself, does not give rise to an estopple situation where there has been no communication to the other party that they relied upon that the license would never be revoked by Rights-Holder. The permission flows from the Rights-Holder and not through intermediaries. Thus even if Linus made communications that HE would never revoke the permission he has given regarding his works of authorship, that does not bind other Rights-Holders regarding their code. *( lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/07/msg00830.html ) On 2017-07-30 07:14, David C. Rankin wrote: > On 07/30/2017 12:55 AM, David Lang wrote: >> You are thinking of Trademarks, they must be defended or you loose >> them. >> Contracts and Licenses do not need to be defended at every chance or >> risk >> loosing them. > > No, not always, it can apply in plain contract as well. The defenses > that > could be later raised by grsecurity if this issue goes unaddressed is > are (1) > latches; and (2) waiver. It is a slippery slope. While, without > commenting on > the dubious nature of the current use of the defenses (as catch-all, > kitchen-sink affirmative-defenses), they can be expected to be raised > if > rights under GPL to insure no further restrictions are placed on > subsequent > use of the kernel-code are not enforced. > > I hope there is a centralized forum that will be established for this > issue > (there may be and I'm just not smart enough to have found it yet). > Certainly, > if for nothing else, so the advantages and disadvantages of both > action, and > inaction, can be peer-reviewed on both the legal and technical side.

4 3

[arch-general] (Off-topic) Command-line torrent download tool
by Kryptxy 01 Aug '17

01 Aug '17

[Off-topic] Command-line torrent download tool for linux and windows OS. The tool fetches torrents from TPB proxy sites. Its written in Python3. Here - https://github.com/kryptxy/torrench Suggestions/feedback is appreciated. Hope someone finds this useful :)

10 14

[arch-general] Yes you have standing to sue GRSecurity.
by nisus＠redchan.it 30 Jul '17

30 Jul '17

It has come to my attention that some entities are claiming that you, dear Linux Hackers, (1)need to go through some foundation or get some permission from upon high in-order to sue the progenitors of GRSecurity for their violation of section 6 of the terms underwhich the linux kernel is distributed (version 2 of the GPL). And, furthermore, that (2)this foundation has no intention of bringing such a suit. (1) is false. (2) may very well be true. You do have standing to sue GRSecurity for their blatant continuing copyright violation if GRSecurity has made a derivative work of your code contribution to the Linux Kernel as-long as (a)you have not assigned your copyrights, and (b)you are not a work-for-hire. How do you know if you are a work for hire or if you have signed away your copyrights? If you are working for a company and as your job duties you are programming the linux kernel, there is a good chance that you are a work for hire and thus the company owns said copyrights. How do you know if you signed away your copyrights? Well if you singed a document transferring ownership of your copyrights for the code you produced at some point. If you are not working for a company while hacking linux and you haven't assigned your copyrights away then YOU OWN YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. This means most of you hobby hackers, if GRSecurity has modified your code, YES YOU HAVE STANDING TO SUE. Yes your "betters" are lying to you. You have individual separate standing to sue. Yes you SHOULD consult a lawyer of your own. Yes you SHOULD consider a joint filing with other individual rights-holders willing to bring suit against GRSecurity for their blatant violation of your terms, and yes you should consider starting CLASS ACTION since the number of Linux Kernel Contributors seemingly numbers in the multitudes upon multitudes upon multitudes. And yes, I am an attorney. But no, I'm not looking for clients. Just correcting some false information that has been spreading. And yes, GRSecurity will try to claim that the linux-kernel is a work of Joint ownership (so as to shield themselves via procedural law) and yes they will try to claim fair use (probably de minimus), and yes your Lawyer will have to respond to these claims. The Joint ownership claim will go down quickly but it will have to be responded to. De minimus Fair Use depends on how much code is modified and how signifigant the modifications are. Don't let anyone but your own legal council dissuade you from bringing suit: Remember the statute of limitations is only a few years, so the clock is ticking on the CURRENT violation. Also make sure you register your copyright of the version of the linux-kernel that GRSecurity is using in its violation prior to bringing suit. The registration must be for the specific version. Yes you can register after the violation has occurred, however if you have registered before the violation then you can also pursue recovery of legal fees, pursue statutory damages, etc. ( NOTE: If you would like to read on how your copyright is being violated by GRSecurity, Bruce Perens posted a good write-up on his web-page ) ( perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infrin… ) ( There was also a discussion on the linux section of slashdot, and on the debian user mailing list, and on the dng devuan mailing list and on the openwall mailing list and the fedora legal mailing list )

3 3

[arch-general] Update to 4.12.3-1 failed to rebuild DKMS virtualbox modules?
by David C. Rankin 29 Jul '17

29 Jul '17

Archdevs, Update tonight to 4.12.3-1, and for the first time in years, DKMS failed to rebuild the VirtualBox kernel modules. Specifically attempting a manual install/build resulted in: # dkms install -m vboxhost -v 5.1.22 Kernel preparation unnecessary for this kernel. Skipping... Building module: cleaning build area... make -j8 KERNELRELEASE=4.12.3-1-ARCH -C /usr/lib/modules/4.12.3-1-ARCH/build M=/var/lib/dkms/vboxhost/5.1.22/build....(bad exit status: 2) Error! Bad return status for module build on kernel: 4.12.3-1-ARCH (x86_64) Consult /var/lib/dkms/vboxhost/5.1.22/build/make.log for more information. Is this known, expected, or do we need to open a bug? The error from the log centers around: CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/vboxhost/5.1.22/build/vboxdrv/r0drv/linux/memuserkernel-r0drv-linux.o In file included from /var/lib/dkms/vboxhost/5.1.22/build/vboxdrv/r0drv/linux/alloc-r0drv-linux.c:31:0: /var/lib/dkms/vboxhost/5.1.22/build/vboxdrv/r0drv/linux/alloc-r0drv-linux.c: In function ‘VBoxHost_RTMemContAlloc’: /var/lib/dkms/vboxhost/5.1.22/build/vboxdrv/r0drv/linux/the-linux-kernel.h:323:47: error: implicit declaration of function ‘set_pages_x’; did you mean ‘get_page’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] # define MY_SET_PAGES_EXEC(pPages, cPages) set_pages_x(pPages, cPages) ^ /var/lib/dkms/vboxhost/5.1.22/build/vboxdrv/r0drv/linux/alloc-r0drv-linux.c:445:13: note: in expansion of macro ‘MY_SET_PAGES_EXEC’ MY_SET_PAGES_EXEC(&paPages[iPage], 1); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <snip> -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

1 1

[arch-general] broken package stops pacstrap
by mick howe 29 Jul '17

29 Jul '17

Trying to install arch i686 on my IBM x345 using 2015 07 install media (yes I know its 2 years old). Get as far as running pacstrap and it comes to a crashing halt on checking package integrity error: krb5 : signature from "Levente Polyak (anthraxx) levente(a)leventepolyak.net> " is unknown trust :: File /mnt/var/cache/pacman/pkg/krb5-1.15.1-1-i686.pkg.tar.xz is corrupted (invalid or corrupted package PGP signature)). How can I get past this crash mick in glen innes

4 4

[arch-general] Procedure for getting informed about ban duration and reason
by mpan 27 Jul '17

27 Jul '17

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I’m asking for an advice on how to proceed. I am *not* discussing the reasons or trying to rant. The situation is: — On July 25th at 3:10 UTC I have been banned on #archlinux-offtopic with the reason „fuck you” and a warning „next time you trash talk on the ops, I set it to a week”. I was sleeping at the time, so I have discovered that just before 16 UTC. — Since I was given no info on the ban duration and the reason seemed strange, I’ve wanted to contact the op responsible for the ban. He was absent, so I was advised to use phrik’s !later to send a message. This is what I have done, asking for the reason and the relevant logs with the context. — The op has appeared. After waiting for a hour I’ve received no response, so I have PM’d him with the same question. — After another hour of waiting there was still no answer, but seeing the op on #archlinux I’ve asked him about the issue. I was informed that if I am going to ask about that, the ban will be prolonged and then I was threatened with a “final warning”. It’s July 27th ~22:30 UTC and I am neither unbanned, have no information on ban duration or the actual reason and being prohibited from querying that via IRC. What should I do next? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEERGuTZCqWmv5+0VD7fISBmK6T07sFAll5F5YACgkQfISBmK6T 07tbAQgAowUzUloVRgw2umrYTEVcJ6cBZ0OG17PwR/3D2kXoIn1p1Ke0zA9KVVLY dxjY3DwdMso+gVS3vCoBsOOGvxKGbXldE7fX8u8EAiPNvPNZt33JLvb1i9jFFaEG 5ArpV8dOc1rAaARkmAyzJOCnUjqZH4GfVZmLzEbX1GwdIm4L55JZyN63fM6asrTu /KaoI+oBZ1WhoKtBOQqCH3Ivqbpq5u5ZH8TdiQwmxviujhQEo1SqQ9yX+rGV8CGA D/bDIwhkk7FKSB2RBlbKOpW+3CLPSKa8ad6tFEOHWpt5joRTwdxnF2/ZhC8MNBfZ Z7LUYjaervciKhZFCsUIQ4GCCN2owA== =uo7i -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 4