Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement.
On Thu 20/Jul/2017 22:18:25 +0200 Fungi4All wrote:
>> > On 19/07/17 12:17, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>
>> Of course, nobody dislikes security. Making it neat and clear is another
>> question, and that"s why experiments are needed. Can we consider Linux and
>> GRSecurity as entities cooperating with each other in that respect?
>
> GRS is a formal hierarchical organization, a very different single endity
> than the linux "thing". A community of many different entities, in size and
> shape. Not a formal organization, I don't think. How can the two different
> things communicate, let alone cooperate? Let's just home each does their
> thing and share what they do and leave it at that.
Yes, of course. I didn't mean to propose to change anything "real" of how each
organization works. My question was meant to check if we can consider GRS to
be good although somehow misguided, and if it could be viable for them to
double-license their code (by some tricky clause, e.g. section 7 of GPLv3?)
Disclaimer: I'm not involved in either organization's copyrights.
Allowing GPL infringements makes "us" look like jackasses :-/
> For linux we all need to agree before we decide.
Yeah, that's a pita. It's hard to change anything if everyone can veto.
Ale
Reply to: