3 ms·

I wouldn't say it's that great (both technically and in spirit). > As sole copyright holder on the RAP plugin itself, the PaX Team is only licensing the full v

by leni536 10y ago

I wouldn't say it's that great (both technically and in spirit). > As sole copyright holder on the RAP plugin itself, the PaX Team is only licensing the full version under a GPLv3 license to commercial customers to permit legal compilation of userland binaries. So technically nothing stops commercial customers to redistribute the sources in GPLv3. You can't just give out exclusive GPLv3 licenses, it doesn't make any sense. Also where can I download the "public RAP demo"? edit: IANAL

blockoperation 10y ago
> Also where can I download the "public RAP demo"? I assume that's the version that comes with the PaX/grsec kernel patches, in which case it's this: https://github.com/minipli/linux-grsec/tree/v4.8.17-pax/scripts/gcc-plugins/rap_plugin https://github.com/minipli/linux-grsec/tree/v4.8.17-pax/scri...
gbuk2013 10y ago
My guess is that there could be some contractual agreement to forbid sharing of the GPLv3 source? It is an interesting "hack" though and I would also like to know the answer (for no reason other than curiosity - I have no use for this software).
- CrLf 10y ago
  > My guess is that there could be some contractual agreement to forbid sharing of the GPLv3 source? That would negate the GPLv3 itself. What they (the PaX team) can do is provide an exception (like GCC does) to let the client use it while not having their (the client's) own code infected by the GPLv3. The client would still be entitled to distribute the software they got from the PaX team to another party, which would receive it under the same terms.