GRsecurity violating GPLv2 themselves by prohibiting redistribution

Posted Jun 1, 2016 21:01 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
In reply to: GRsecurity violating GPLv2 themselves by prohibiting redistribution by mjg59
Parent article: Grsecurity stable patches to be limited to sponsors

They can be compliant with the license but have a different end result for the general public compared to RHEL. That is the conversation.

GRsecurity violating GPLv2 themselves by prohibiting redistribution

Posted Jun 1, 2016 21:10 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (3 responses)

The conversation was about whether what they were doing was a GPL violation or not. Red Hat's behaviour seems like the obvious comparison in the absence of any difference that's relevant to the license conditions.

GRsecurity violating GPLv2 themselves by prohibiting redistribution

Posted Jun 1, 2016 21:27 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

This subthread of the conversation is about whether the situation is similar to RHEL since this was a question posted earlier in the thread. I was responding to that specifically.

GRsecurity violating GPLv2 themselves by prohibiting redistribution

Posted Jun 1, 2016 21:28 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (1 responses)

…from the perspective of whether it's a GPL violation or not.

GRsecurity violating GPLv2 themselves by prohibiting redistribution

Posted Jun 1, 2016 22:22 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

I wasn't reading it the same way. I was just answering the question on whether this is different from RHEL.