Attempting to circumvent the intent/spirit of the GPL is not going to be looked upon kindly by FOSS communities or by the courts.
I don't think that means you should expect them to tolerate production of a commercial closed-source derived work...
-
-
...especially by a party they have a long history of hostility with.
-
It's not closed source. Customers buy the source code. They don't purchase binaries. Public vs. non-public is irrelevant to the GPL.
-
GPL doesn't require publicly publishing source code, but rather giving it to customers under the terms of the GPL. That's the *product*.
-
The product is not a kernel build. It's the grsecurity patch, applied by the customer to their kernels and run on their servers.
-
The users with rights granted by the GPL are the grsecurity customers, who are purchasing the patches to apply to their kernels.
-
Even if the patches were not GPL compatible (and they are), is it infringement to distribute them as source code or only to build/run them?
-
Is ZFS on Linux infringing on the GPL simply by publishing the sources, or the infringement (if any) when users build and run that code?
End of conversation
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.