https://twitter.com/jonoberheide/status/857243764800225280 … It will still be GPLv2 since customers are paying for sources licensed as GPLv2. Legally, they could publish it.
Forget about future vers; it's a distraction. If they said "if you exercise your rights under GPL, we'll kill a kitten" it'd infringe too.
-
-
They aren't saying that, it's an assumption we're making: if a company published it, they likely wouldn't continue to do business with them.
-
As soon as that happens, or as soon as they in any way suggest that that might happen, there's grounds for litigation.
-
By Linux kernel developers, not the customer. There are no grounds for one of their customers to sue since it's not their software license.
-
Linux kernel industry standards and cultural norms are not the place to look if you're expecting such strong GPL enforcement...
-
grsecurity is distributed as a patch, not a binary. Customers are not receiving a binary. Doesn't fit into how GPL tries to protect users.
-
They are distributing a derivative of the Linux kernel, as GPL2-licensed sources to customers. They (mostly?) aren't distributing binaries.
-
And if the patch does not contain GPL'ed code from third parties, they are free to relicense it and put it under any license they want.
-
A nontrivial patch to complex code is necessarily a derived work. There's no such thing as "does not contain GPL'd code" here.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.