| 1 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:55:16 +0200 SK wrote: |
| 2 |
> And it's not about money from what I've read, should read this if you |
| 3 |
> want some more information : |
| 4 |
> https://hardenedlinux.github.io/announcement/2017/04/29/hardenedlinux-statement2.html |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Sounds like a very lame excuse... |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Closing the public access doesn’t make PaX/Grsecurity a |
| 9 |
> non-free/libre software. Those who purchase subscriptions can |
| 10 |
> access the source code. We don’t see GPL violated in any way here. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The devil is in the detail. If subscribers will not be restricted |
| 13 |
in all four freedoms including distribution, than this is |
| 14 |
unfortunate, but legal action. But if subscribers will be limited |
| 15 |
in distribution of the source code, e.g. by a threat of cancelling |
| 16 |
their subscription, this will be illegal, this will be GPLv2 |
| 17 |
violation and PaXTeam will turn into bunch of criminals. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> After all, it’s PaX team/Spender’s creation and they can do |
| 20 |
> anything they want. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
No, they can't, because it is not their exclusive creation: many |
| 23 |
people have contributed to PaX/GrSec over past years and they also |
| 24 |
have rights for parts of these code. Moreover PaXTeam is using Linux |
| 25 |
kernel code (without it the whole project is meaningless) and they |
| 26 |
must respect copyright right and authorship of everyone who |
| 27 |
contibuted to the Linux kernel. If GPLv2 is respected, all is OK. |
| 28 |
But PaXTeams plays on the very edge of GPLv2 violation right now |
| 29 |
(without the exact terms of the subscription it is not possible to |
| 30 |
say if GPLv2 is violated or not). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Frankly, I'm more and more convinced that the real reason behind |
| 33 |
all this charade is that GrSec/PaX is indeed a very powerful |
| 34 |
security technology. So powerful that in became a serious hindrance |
| 35 |
for nsa (or any other shitty agency) and PaXTeam was nailed down to |
| 36 |
provide further updates only to "proper" customers and cut off wide |
| 37 |
FOSS community from this powerful technology. Of course they likely |
| 38 |
have some secret court orders denying them to disclosure the real |
| 39 |
reason, so we all are watching this charade. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
P.S. Please do not top-post. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Best regards, |
| 44 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives