It fills me with joy that grsecurity has reportedly started to sue people who make incorrect statements of them violating the GPL.
-
-
Replying to @i0n1c
You mean except for the part where they violate the GPL? They distribute GPLv2'ed plug-ins for GPLv3 GCC. Those are incompatible.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @marcan42
You should be happy about the move. Now courts will decide who is right.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @i0n1c
Unfortunately this case is about their business model, not the GCC plug-in issue. The latter is more dangerous because it's now upstream.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marcan42
Honestly I believe the whole idea that you create a software with a plugin interface and then force a certain license on plugins is nuts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @i0n1c
That's fair; I'm going by FSF's interpretation here. Not sure if the plug-in case has ever been tested in court.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Still, the fact that we're here, and we're here due to a convoluted licensing hack by grsec, and it puts upstream Linux in jeopardy, is sad.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @i0n1c
It's both grsec's fault for starting the mess (and falsely claiming compliance) and upstream's fault for not caring.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So with all this mess and if the binaries and the upstream is tainted how does this get sorted?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @_vventura @i0n1c
Source, not binaries. And good question.
8:12 AM - 5 Aug 2017
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
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.