On lun., 2016-01-11 at 12:05 +0000, Michael D wrote: > > It's not a GPL issue. It's perfectly clear in the stable patches terms of > service that you're *not* supposed to share the patches in the wild. > > Supposed != not allowed. Whilst they could in theory revoke access to > whoever shares them, the GPL cannot be overridden by any such terms of > service or non disclosure agreements.
I don't want to argue on this, so final point: it's not a GPL issue per se, it's just that getting access to *one* patch doesn't interest me. > > I would like to see grsec become more mainstream thanks to projects such as > this, but if upstream wants to limit that I guess it's their choice. Indeed. -- Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
