6 ms·

Along with that Grsec then says that if while the patch is GPLv2 if you distribute them they'll never let you subscribe again to get the patch in the future.

clhodapp 9y ago
That's a pretty interesting loophole in the GPL: apparently (at least with V2), it might be fine to impose consequences for exercising your rights while technically giving them to you. It certainly violates the spirit of the GPL even if it doesn't violate the letter.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  It does not impose amy restrictions on getting the code. You need to write a bot to get status updates though. Mailing list is not the code. If he starts filtering on the web server or rejecting direct source requests, he starts violating the letter of GPL 2.
  - clhodapp 9y ago
    I'm not sure that your claim about where the line is holds up: the GPLv2 never requires you to give your source to anyone unless you first give them binaries. That's why web sites don't have to give out their sources to everyone who visits their site if they use a GPL library for instance. In any case, if what you say is correct, the grsecurity team are still trying to hold the threat of a more annoying experience over their users in order up prevent them from exercising their rights under the GPLv2.
mrsteveman1 9y ago
They've turned core infrastructure enhancements into what might as well be one of Microsoft's "reference source" deals, or a EULA.
- sighsagain 9y ago
  More like for years they gave everyone free research and patches. And then some companies turned that into a way to use it without crediting them and even going as far as to employ other people to copy their work. The comparison with the windows reference source doesn't work because every grsec customer gets the source.
tinus_hn 9y ago
According to the license they don't have to provide the source code to anyone except those that got the compiled product. If you take an open source product, modify it and only use it in-house you don't have to provide source code to anyone.

clhodapp 9y ago

That's a pretty interesting loophole in the GPL: apparently (at least with V2), it might be fine to impose consequences for exercising your rights while technically giving them to you. It certainly violates the spirit of the GPL even if it doesn't violate the letter.

AstralStorm 9y ago
It does not impose amy restrictions on getting the code. You need to write a bot to get status updates though. Mailing list is not the code. If he starts filtering on the web server or rejecting direct source requests, he starts violating the letter of GPL 2.
- clhodapp 9y ago
  I'm not sure that your claim about where the line is holds up: the GPLv2 never requires you to give your source to anyone unless you first give them binaries. That's why web sites don't have to give out their sources to everyone who visits their site if they use a GPL library for instance. In any case, if what you say is correct, the grsecurity team are still trying to hold the threat of a more annoying experience over their users in order up prevent them from exercising their rights under the GPLv2.

mrsteveman1 9y ago

They've turned core infrastructure enhancements into what might as well be one of Microsoft's "reference source" deals, or a EULA.

sighsagain 9y ago
More like for years they gave everyone free research and patches. And then some companies turned that into a way to use it without crediting them and even going as far as to employ other people to copy their work. The comparison with the windows reference source doesn't work because every grsec customer gets the source.

tinus_hn 9y ago

According to the license they don't have to provide the source code to anyone except those that got the compiled product. If you take an open source product, modify it and only use it in-house you don't have to provide source code to anyone.