5 ms·

I've got a question about this whole GPL enforcement issue. Scenario: I'm a VPS company, I provide my customers with kernels compiled with GRSec. I provide a

I've got a question about this whole GPL enforcement issue. Scenario: I'm a VPS company, I provide my customers with kernels compiled with GRSec. I provide a number of modules for different protocols, nftables, etc. with the custom kernels i've built for the VMs. Under the GPL I have to provide the patched source of all those modules (and kernel If I provide that image too) to my customer. Question: With GRSec's reported threat of no longer being allowed to be a customer of theirs if I provide the legally required source to my customer, does this mean I can no longer reconcile their two licenses and means that I cannot use their kernel patches for my customers?

SwellJoe 9y ago
That's a big part of the implication of this post, I think. Grsecurity heavily markets itself to the multi-tenant hosting industry. Thus, your scenario is a big part of their customer base. So, if these allegations are true, then not only is grsecurity violating the GPL, they're demanding their customers violate the GPL, too.
- simcop2387 9y ago
  That's what I thought was going on from the discussion. Glad to see that it's not just me reading it that way. I'd think then that if GRSec is doing it, and intending to use it that way (I am not a lawyer) then it would appear to me that the assertion that they're violating the GPL since they're adding another restriction on distribution.
- lokedhs 9y ago
  Shouldn't that be simple to test though? Sign up for one of the hosting providers that uses them and ask for the source code too their kernel and see what they reply. If I were to guess, I think that they'd argue that providing you with an environment on which you can run your software doesn't equate with "distribution" under the GPL. Keep in mind that the cloud issues (and patents) were what caused GPL v3 to be written in the first place.
  - simcop2387 9y ago
    Yea that's why I specifically mentioned modules in my original comment. It might be possible to argue that you don't get to see the kernel image so it wasn't distributed to you, but if they gave you modules from that kernel that you can load/unload then it'd be a lot harder to make that argument that they weren't distributed to you.

SwellJoe 9y ago

That's a big part of the implication of this post, I think. Grsecurity heavily markets itself to the multi-tenant hosting industry. Thus, your scenario is a big part of their customer base. So, if these allegations are true, then not only is grsecurity violating the GPL, they're demanding their customers violate the GPL, too.

simcop2387 9y ago
That's what I thought was going on from the discussion. Glad to see that it's not just me reading it that way. I'd think then that if GRSec is doing it, and intending to use it that way (I am not a lawyer) then it would appear to me that the assertion that they're violating the GPL since they're adding another restriction on distribution.
lokedhs 9y ago
Shouldn't that be simple to test though? Sign up for one of the hosting providers that uses them and ask for the source code too their kernel and see what they reply. If I were to guess, I think that they'd argue that providing you with an environment on which you can run your software doesn't equate with "distribution" under the GPL. Keep in mind that the cloud issues (and patents) were what caused GPL v3 to be written in the first place.
- simcop2387 9y ago
  Yea that's why I specifically mentioned modules in my original comment. It might be possible to argue that you don't get to see the kernel image so it wasn't distributed to you, but if they gave you modules from that kernel that you can load/unload then it'd be a lot harder to make that argument that they weren't distributed to you.