Retaliation against a customer for exercising their rights under the GPL would be a very interesting case to see go to court.
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.
-
So what happens if I created a Linux kernel patch released under a BSD license (not including a single byte of the GPL'ed kernel source)?
-
All the cases I found talk about patching GPL'ed code and distributing the result.. or the patch together with the result.
- 3 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.