3 ms·

But wouldn't they need to follow the Linux license, which is GPL2only?

by 0x0 11y ago

awalton 11y ago
That'd be the joy of their paralegal auditing team's life for the next year to figure out: does all of the code that they're building into their version of the kernel include the "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" clause, such that the resulting binary can be a legal GPLv3 binary? I haven't a clue. The GRsec people wouldn't care, their patch can be whatever GPLv2-compatible license it wants to be.
RaleyField 11y ago
Code will be available to sponsors and sponsors would be entitled to release it to the public, but presumably they will threaten to cut you from future updates if they did that, otherwise these is no point in raising the paywall. Unless you are willing to burn dozens of shell companies for each update there is no way of stopping them.
- teraflop 11y ago
  Is that actually allowed by the GPL? The text says: > Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. (emphasis mine) Is it legal to penalize someone for exercising their redistribution rights, or would that count as a de facto restriction?
  - RaleyField 11y ago
    > you may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. Further restrictions probably aren't introduced if they packaged this the right way i.e. not bind the GPL license with whatever agreement they will come up with. Sponsors will still have the same rights they are now used to, but GPL never speaks obligations on the distributor having to provide updated versions.

3 ms·

But wouldn't they need to follow the Linux license, which is GPL2only?

by 0x0 11y ago

But wouldn't they need to follow the Linux license, which is GPL2only?

awalton 11y ago
That'd be the joy of their paralegal auditing team's life for the next year to figure out: does all of the code that they're building into their version of the kernel include the "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" clause, such that the resulting binary can be a legal GPLv3 binary? I haven't a clue. The GRsec people wouldn't care, their patch can be whatever GPLv2-compatible license it wants to be.
RaleyField 11y ago
Code will be available to sponsors and sponsors would be entitled to release it to the public, but presumably they will threaten to cut you from future updates if they did that, otherwise these is no point in raising the paywall. Unless you are willing to burn dozens of shell companies for each update there is no way of stopping them.
- teraflop 11y ago
  Is that actually allowed by the GPL? The text says: > Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. (emphasis mine) Is it legal to penalize someone for exercising their redistribution rights, or would that count as a de facto restriction?
  - RaleyField 11y ago
    > you may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. Further restrictions probably aren't introduced if they packaged this the right way i.e. not bind the GPL license with whatever agreement they will come up with. Sponsors will still have the same rights they are now used to, but GPL never speaks obligations on the distributor having to provide updated versions.