Grsecurity stable patches to be limited to sponsors

I'll repeat myself yet again -- the FSF takes pains to state that folks are free to chose whatever license they want for their own software. They strongly believe that many of those choices are unethical, do their best to present a compelling case, and put their money where their mouth is by writing a considerable body of software via methods they consider ethical.

Ignoring the false equivalacies with the NRA, you're still claiming that advocating for something somehow forces or imposes it upon you. By that same token, what you are I are writing here is also fanatical imposition or coercion.

> Games are the bulk of software market - have always been and still are. What other software is sold to end customers in bestbuys of the world? Pretty much every other need is covered by "software as a service" approach.

Ah, I am beginning to see the underlying flaw in your assumptions -- The bulk of software market consists of stuff that is not sold to the general public. Most programmers are employed writing or customizing software for internal, non-public use (eg business middleware, stuff to power web services, internal IT stuff, and the like). Only a small fraction is ever sold at retail, and even that is shrinking -- The modern approach (as practiced by web services and smartphone platfoms) tend to give the software away and rely on advertising or the truly awful euphamism that is called in-app-purchases. (I have nothing against IAP in principle, but in practice it consists primarily of practices that would make casinos and tobacco companies blush with embarassment. or envy.)

But I digress. Retail, sold-to-consumer software is a small portion of the overall software market. If that's what you want to target your efforts, it is of course your choice, but understand that there are other options that have different dynamics and implications, and that your principals/values/ethics/whatever are not universal.

> If you are practicing your trade, this perhaps means that you are employed by a commercial company or run one. Even Linux the kernel these days is being worked on primarily by commercial entities, enthusiasts that have sufficient free time constitute a minority (and perhaps could have made a better use of their free time).

I can't disagree with any of that, though none of us really have the right to judge how other people spend their free time.

> In that case, GPL is of no use for you; you cannot sell GPL'd product, nor can you incorporate GPL'd code in your product. What is the freedom we're talking about then? Freedom to do something at home in your free time? BSD takes care of that - and unlike GPL, the end result of your work can be used by you.

LOLwut? You just said that "Linux the kernel" is mostly commercial, yet every single one of those contributing vendors incorporates GPL code into their products, which they presumably sell for a profitable amount of money. On the same token, all of my former employers have sold products incorporating GPL code -- and have had no difficulty complying with the license terms while making a buck or three.

Also, where do you think said BSD code comes from? The same arguments you are making against writing/releasing copyleft stuff applies even more so to writing/releasing any source code at all, preculding the very existence of BSD-licensed source code.

As for personal moonlighting -- these days it consists mostly of hacking on Gutenprint -- Fully GPL'd code. It started (not unlike the FSF) because I wanted to be able to directly use a specific printer with Linux. I'll spare you the history, but suffice it to say that original printer now works *better* than with the manufacturer's official Windows/OSX drivers, and this GPL printer driver work led to various commercial concerns paying me to further improve things.

They don't do it out of altruism; they do it because this approach leads to a greater ROI than their alternatives. In the process, they benefit, I benefit, and everyone else benefits in the form of a greater, more useful, body of software.

> Although if you work in the area that truly interests you, you don't have any free time for moonlighting - hence first and foremost you should be thinking about your freedoms as a professional, not as a dabbling enthusiast.

You fail to see that those freedoms are equivalent -- they enable enthusiasts to become amateurs, and enable amateurs to become professionals. My own career is demonstration that this is not a theoretical benefit -- My involvement in copyleft software has directly led to all but one of my day jobs.