Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GrSecurity Kernel Patches Will No Longer Be Free To The Public

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by stefansaraev View Post
    cool! I've been waiting for this for so long
    wat? why?

    Comment


    • #12
      I wish the title reflected better that GrSec is no longer following the open source spirit, even if its correct.

      As far as companies "leaking" the patches, the thing is, it's also completely legal for GrSec to stop selling the code to these companies after they leaked it, effectively making stuff closed source, while technically being GPLv2 open source code.

      Basically, GrSec is now in my book of "anti open source" companies.

      Comment


      • #13
        Charging for something isn't against the GPL...
        But isn't withholding source code against the GPL? How is this not in violation?

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
          You mean upstream not accepting most of their changes? Because that's what happened in reality.
          Grsecurity has never submitted an upstream patch.
          https://lwn.net/Articles/315164/

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by lunarcloud View Post
            Charging for something isn't against the GPL...
            But isn't withholding source code against the GPL? How is this not in violation?
            Withholding source code is not against the GPL. e.g, if I forked a GPL project of yours and edited it for my own internal use, you couldn't demand I release the code. I only have to distribute the source(or access to such) if I redistributed a binary of my fork.
            https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq...UnreleasedMods

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by peppercats View Post
              Grsecurity has never submitted an upstream patch.
              https://lwn.net/Articles/315164/
              I said upstream didn't accept, not that they submitted. Someone else did submit some stuff, and upstream didn't accept it.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by lunarcloud View Post
                Charging for something isn't against the GPL...
                But isn't withholding source code against the GPL? How is this not in violation?
                GPL requires you to provide sources to individuals that receive your binary program, not to the world at large.

                There are various projects like this that use GPLed code from kernel as if it was basically closed source since they only share with customers, that are obviously unlikely to share with third parties.

                Comment


                • #18
                  What is it with the authors of hardening patchsets and being upstream-hostile drama-laden egomongers?

                  Fat lot of good such an approach did for Suhosin, and now grsec are going even more full-retard, wow.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Truth View Post
                    What is it with the authors of hardening patchsets and being upstream-hostile drama-laden egomongers?

                    Fat lot of good such an approach did for Suhosin, and now grsec are going even more full-retard, wow.
                    It's advantageous to their business model to portray the Linux kernel as negatively as possible. The more they portray upstream as being bumbling oafs that don't understand or want to fix security issues, the more they can sell their product.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Truth View Post
                      What is it with the authors of hardening patchsets and being upstream-hostile drama-laden egomongers?
                      That's pretty much the stereotype of hacker.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X