| 1 |
On 29 Apr 2017 at 16:11, Alex Efros wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Hi! |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 01:49:20PM +0200, Luis Ressel wrote: |
| 6 |
> > in case anyone hasn't read in on LWN yet, here's what I'm talking |
| 7 |
> > about: https://grsecurity.net/passing_the_baton.php |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Sorry for OT, but is this legal? Or, more correct, is this will works? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Sure, they can sell their patch to Linux kernel without opensourcing that |
| 12 |
> patch. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
granted that 'open source' is a rather loaded term these days, i think it |
| 15 |
never meant 'available to the public' (shareware would be 'open source' too |
| 16 |
then), just that the license is 'open' (whose definition the FSF and others |
| 17 |
don't necessarily agree on either). there's plenty of 'open source' licenced |
| 18 |
code that never sees the light of day outside of a group of users. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> But at soon as their customers (say, some government org or large |
| 21 |
> company) will APPLY that patch to Linux kernel and try to DISTRIBUTE that |
| 22 |
> kernel on their computers |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
there's no need to speculate on this, the FSF has already answered it: |
| 25 |
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#InternalDistribution |
Archives