The grsecurity brand is a registered trademark and spender has the right to control how it's used. If you ship a product with the official grsecurity patch appl

The grsecurity brand is a registered trademark and spender has the right to control how it's used. If you ship a product with the official grsecurity patch applied, you get to say it uses a grsecurity kernel in your marketing. If you want to use anything but the latest official/test kernels, then you need to make it clear that it's not grsecurity (but rather your port) or pay official support with all of the backporting, auditing and testing that entails. I'm working on an open-source product using my own port of PaX/grsecurity (as it needs to target an unsupported kernel) and I had no problem understanding and complying with spender's wishes about this. These companies have to respect the GPL license, so they need to provide the users with the source code for their kernels. > And exactly how much money has GRsecurity paid to the developers of the kernel they're patching? The unmitigated gall factor here is stronger than most of these kinds of rants that I've seen, because they're not even the upstream. The grsecurity project respects the upstream trademark and licensing. In this case, they are one of the upstreams... they're not complaining about kernels not using their substantial amount of code.