Hi, deloptes wrote: > not everyone has the time to get a legal overview such that nisus provided.
I beg your pardon. But that "legal overview" is trivial and off topic here. Firstly, the GRSecurity issue is discussed more than enough by the people whom it concerns, namely those who contributed copyrightable material to the Linux kernel code, which GRSecurity takes as base for its work. I doubt that many people on this list have earned the merit of adding the own copyright to the kernel. Those who have, will be well aware whether they are affected by this issue. Secondly, enforcing the GPL is a matter of thorough thought, good planning, excellent legal advice, and a solid piece of luck in court. Shouting a hysteric "you-can-do-too" message is not helping in any way. And finally, i suspect that the whole GRSecurity issue is currently in the focus of lawyers who want to sue somebody regardless of the facts or their legal entitlement. I don't say that the GRSecurity issue should not be assessed by law courts. But i say that it shall not fall victim to crooked lawyers. The disputable point about GRSecurity's stance is that they claim to provide the patches under GPL but threaten to end a customer's subscription if that customer makes use of the freedom to distribute copies. At least if the end of this article represents them correctly: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/grsecurity_linux_kernel_freeloaders/ But hey, nobody needs GRSecurity to run Linux. The best way to deal with this is to stay away from any pseudo-GPL'ed software. We have a clear statement from the nexus, on which we all trust when using a Linux kernel: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1706.2/06228.html "Don't bother with grsecurity." - Linus Torvalds Have a nice day :) Thomas
