Re: GRSecurity Closes Stable Patch to Linux Kernel. How do you feel about this?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 06:32:59AM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 15/09/15 17:37, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > So if you want to do a service to humankind, stop whining, cough
> > up the $200 and redistribute GRSecurity. All happy. You could try
> > to recoup some of your costs by asking for some contributions.
>
> … and be prepared for all the former GRSecurity freeloaders to come
> along and start downloading the stable branch from you instead.
Well -- that's what you get into with GPL. Probably GRSecurity wouldn't
have a business case at all weren't it for the GPL of the Linux kernel.
> It's a shame they had to go down that road, but it was the companies
> that saw it as a "free beer" kernel for their devices rather than as
> an open kernel. i.e. they're expected to contribute something in return.
That sucks, especially considering that those $200 are probably petty
change for Wind River. I think there are several "venues of attack":
(1) Naming and Shaming. Always very effective.
(2) Trademark ("yeah, include our product, but don't use our name").
Combined with (1) might do wonders.
(3) Close scrutiny of GPL compliance (are they really making all
their changes available?) Conservancy[1] might be of help here.
- - - - - - - -
[1] https://sfconservancy.org/
Regards
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlX5FJkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kY/bgCggRJGicLITa02QKKFKXKzJ8fD
E18AnA9DwXoRydMHtFvkU4swDNUt852t
=50eP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: