Reply to post:

Linux kernel hardeners Grsecurity sue open source's Bruce Perens

Hans 1
Facepalm

Venerable AC, I think you have completely missed the point, here!

If Perens wins, then effectively anyone doing their own kernel hacks is in breach of GPL2 if they don't publish their hack freely.

Nope, you do not get it. Only those that sell/distribute derivative works have to, they have always had to, BTW.

From https://grsecurity.net/agree/agreement.php (Perens has a PDF: http://perens.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/grsecstablepatchaccessagreement_additionalterms.pdf):

Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that

redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit

obligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of access

to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs.

So, in clear, the GPL says I can redistribute the code to all and sundry AND explicitly prohibits the addition of limitation to the contract. GRSecurity says: if you exercise that right, you are no longer a customer. Clearly in breach of GPL, it no longer applies to GRSecurity, they have no leg to stand on, they are now selling Linux kernel patches without a GPL. Linus, and a bazillion other poeple, can sue them to hell and back ... and Perens can only win. This future code debate is mute, if I redistribute the code freely, I will be sanctioned -> clearly against the GPL.

You have to understand that their whole business model relies on Linux kernel patches, that the Linux kernel was created by a great many people, that it could not exist without a license like the GPL ... great to see them contribute, sad to see them trying to milk ... Listen, GRSecurity, the kernel is NOT YOURS, consider yourself lucky to be able to make some money on the back of it!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon