| 1 |
* philipp.ammann@××××××.de schrieb am 04.09.15 um 13:33 Uhr: |
| 2 |
> Am 03.09.2015 23:08 schrieb Marc Schiffbauer: |
| 3 |
> > True and what I wanted to say with the OTOH part. But doesn't this |
| 4 |
> > apply |
| 5 |
> > to any sponsor? I mean we are talking about GPL'ed Software... does the |
| 6 |
> > GPL permit to distribute source under some kind of NDA? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > I fully respect their decision but I hope things will be back to normal |
| 9 |
> > again soon. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> No you can't override the GPL with an NDA. But a sponsor - who is |
| 13 |
> selling products based on grsecurity - is not required to make the code |
| 14 |
> available to the general public, only to the customer who pays for the |
| 15 |
> product. They're also not required to make their /patches/ available, |
| 16 |
> only the complete source. So even if you get the sources from a customer |
| 17 |
> (or you buy the product yourself), you would have to diff the code |
| 18 |
> against a vanilla kernel - and then you only get a huge patch that |
| 19 |
> includes *all* changes. Extracting just the grsecurity patch from that |
| 20 |
> is complicated and error prone. You'll probably run into less bugs if |
| 21 |
> you just stick to the public testing patches. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Yes, but the point I was trying to make is: Such a customer can make the |
| 24 |
sources available to the public. I am NOT saying we should do this but |
| 25 |
in theory it would be possible. |
| 26 |
Lets see what the future brings. This is going to be too OT ;) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-Marc |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
0x35A64134 - 8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317 |
| 32 |
3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134 |
Archives