Grsecurity stable patches to be limited to sponsors

Posted Aug 28, 2015 4:58 UTC (Fri) by dakas (guest, #88146)
In reply to: Grsecurity stable patches to be limited to sponsors by nzx
Parent article: Grsecurity stable patches to be limited to sponsors

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't it possible for a sponsor to publish stable patches on their own? GPL clearly allows that (redistribution).

Yes. Which makes an interesting GPL monetization vector: security. You pay for getting the software from a trusted source. If the developer figured out you redistributed, your next version could contain properly GPLed easter eggs.

At some point of time, you have to pick between being in good standing with the developer or going through with redistribution.

There is only so much a license can achieve.

Grsecurity stable patches to be limited to sponsors

Posted Aug 29, 2015 16:00 UTC (Sat) by RCL (guest, #63264) [Link] (1 responses)

This is so sick... Take a fresh look and compare to more traditional licenses, both permissive and proprietary. The kind of relationship with your customers that GPL forces you to have simply aren't normal, neither from business standpoint nor from enthusiast one.

I see this as an intrinsic property of that license, which is loaded with political agenda that you, in turn, have to force upon others. You cannot simply develop software and have agreements suited to fit your particular customer's needs; you have to make them a part of the "movement" and if they are unwilling to, do legal and technical trickery like discussed here. Sickening.

Grsecurity stable patches to be limited to sponsors

Posted Aug 29, 2015 17:53 UTC (Sat) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> I see this as an intrinsic property of that license, which is loaded with political agenda that you, in turn, have to force upon others. You cannot simply develop software and have agreements suited to fit your particular customer's needs; you have to make them a part of the "movement" and if they are unwilling to, do legal and technical trickery like discussed here. Sickening.

Hmm, my customers don't seem to have any problem with using GPL-licensed software. Or paying me to improve it. They seem to think it meets their needs quite well.

So, please, stop claiming to authoritatively speak for everyone just because you can't freeload on someone else's work without even a modicum of compensation.