Grsecurity stable patches to be limited to sponsors

Posted Sep 13, 2015 18:50 UTC (Sun) by pizza (subscriber, #46)
In reply to: Grsecurity stable patches to be limited to sponsors by RCL
Parent article: Grsecurity stable patches to be limited to sponsors

>> 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.

> Exactly, but they would be better off opening it on BSD terms, because that way they can still sell the final product.

So.. you're saying that my customers can't sell *what they're already selling* because it incorporates software that is not BSD based? Or are you saying that I can't sell the software *that I'm already selling* because it's not BSD-based?

As I said at the outset, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Good day.

Grsecurity stable patches to be limited to sponsors

Posted Sep 20, 2015 16:49 UTC (Sun) by RCL (guest, #63264) [Link]

> So.. you're saying that my customers can't sell *what they're already selling* because it incorporates software that is not BSD based? Or are you saying that I can't sell the software *that I'm already selling* because it's not BSD-based?

I am saying that with licenses other than GPL, you could find ways to be better protected from someone repackaging and selling your software while adding little or no value to it at all.

I guess selling GPL software can work for certain markets where software itself is not the key component of the solution, but I fail to see how complicated software that requires extensive R&D (like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ugVuyCXjss) could be developed under that model in a sustainable way.

But I agree it's time to end this discussion. Have a nice day.