1 |
Hi, |
2 |
|
3 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:56:02 +0300 Alex Efros wrote: |
4 |
> Hi! |
5 |
> |
6 |
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 01:55:16PM +0200, SK wrote: |
7 |
> > And it's not about money from what I've read, should read this if you |
8 |
> > want some more information : |
9 |
> |
10 |
> If it's all just about credits, ego and personal conflict with LF - when |
11 |
> they the hell it affects everybody else? AFAIK Gentoo Hardened and |
12 |
> probably most other distributions which use GrSec/PaX have nothing with |
13 |
> all of this. Wanna say "fuuuu" to LF? No prob, change license to say only |
14 |
> listed Linux distributions may continue using GrSec/PaX for free. |
15 |
|
16 |
They can't do this. Because GrSec/PaX is a derivative from Linux |
17 |
kernel (and some other projects), so they can't change a license to |
18 |
the kernel changes they made. If they do, this will be a clear |
19 |
GPLv2 violation and the LF (as well as any other author of a |
20 |
tiniest piece of the kernel) may sue them for the license violation. |
21 |
|
22 |
> Also, if it's NSA case, next step will be to add backdoor into GrSec/PaX |
23 |
> (I suppose everyone realize that) which will eventually ruin Open Source |
24 |
> Security Inc. business anyway. |
25 |
|
26 |
Not necessarily. NSA and affiliates also use Linux and are |
27 |
interested in the enhanced security. So this company may just move |
28 |
on the payroll. |
29 |
|
30 |
But I agree with you that further discussion of possible external |
31 |
enforcement is unproductive, because there is nothing we can do |
32 |
here. |
33 |
|
34 |
Best regards, |
35 |
Andrew Savchenko |