SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/03/linux_kernel_grsecurity_sues_bruce_perens_for_defamation/
In late June, noted open-source programmer Bruce Perens warned that using Grsecurity's Linux kernel security could invite legal trouble.
"As a customer, it's my opinion that you would be subject to both contributory infringement and breach of contract by employing this product in conjunction with the Linux kernel under the no-redistribution policy currently employed by Grsecurity," Perens wrote on his blog.
The following month, Perens was invited to court. Grsecurity sued the open-source doyen, his web host, and as-yet-unidentified defendants who may have helped him draft that post, for defamation and business interference.
Grsecurity offers Linux kernel security patches on a paid-for subscription basis. The software hardens kernel defenses through checks for common errors like memory overflows. Perens, meanwhile, is known for using the Debian Free Software Guidelines to draft the Open Source Definition, with the help of others.
Linus Torvalds, who oversees the Linux kernel, has called Grsecurity's patches "garbage".
... (read the rest at the register)
(Score: 3, Informative) by ledow on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:41PM (1 child)
It's like asking "What's the business model around a free hospital?" How do you monetise people choosing to give away their time, effort and skill?
Basic answer: You can't. You can ask for donations. You can setup a cafe nearby that costs money. You can ask the doctors to give a flyer to every patient (they are under no obligation to distribute it, though). Hell, you could go and paint the fences of the hospital for free and hope people see your work and choose to get you to come do their fence.
But, in the grand scheme of things, you can't really monetise the core product. The reason for that this that, basically, that's what the people MAKING that product don't want you to do.
If you can sell it, so can anyone else. But they can keep giving it away for free too. They don't care that you can't make a living selling it.
If you want to make a business SOLELY on GPL software, you're basically dead in the water. Like all businesses, you have to add value somewhere before anyone will touch it, but all the value you can possibly add to the software itself, under the GPL, must be given away on the same terms.
Hence you can't make money from contributing to GPL software. But you can - in theory - by providing side-services. Hell, you'd make more out of selling an IDE / SCM tool to the developers direct than you would out of trying to sell the GPL software or contribute to it yourself (Bitkeeper was one example, but see what happens when something better comes along or you fall out with the community?). But then you could just sell IDE/SCM software, generally, to anyone, and make more money. In those cases, the actual software is irrelevant. The second that you focus on "how can I make money out of GPL", you've failed, because - honestly - you can't.
It's a fundamental misunderstanding to expect to be able to monetise every possible thing in the world. It's also a little disheartening that you don't realise that.
It's like saying how can I run a business running a free food bank? You really can't. And anything you can do to provide profit (e.g. selling off excess donated food) might well be fraudulent if you don't tell people you're doing that, or discourage people from contributing at best. And it would NEVER meet your expenses.
And the beauty of the system is - if you believe Red Hat are destroying the OS, you have an immediate solution. Use one of the other myriad distributions that aren't, but are including the same bits of software that you want. Hell, I've never actually used Red Hat in my life, and I've deployed hundreds of Linux machines in all kinds of scenarios. I don't think I've ever seriously used Fedora, either.
The guy is talented, in every way except communicating with others. If he really wants to make a product that he can make a living out of, he either has to move to the services around it (good luck convincing people to use your services with his business attitude), or he could go make money on ALL KINDS of software security projects that are nothing to do with open-source. Fact is, he's trying to sell access to his "magic fixes" to free software that he refuses to contribute back in a useful way, but his code doesn't work without that same free software and co-operation. So he's sidelined. Ignored. His code is only in his project.
He's a guy trying to sell you "his" brand of free stuff, by taking other people's free stuff, putting it in a box with some cool stickers on it, then expecting you to pay for it. Meanwhile, he's also threatening to cut you off if you reveal that fact, and sue you if you disagree with what he's doing.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:11PM
>Hence you can't make money from contributing to GPL software
Nonsense - you probably can't make money *selling* GPL software, but lots of people make money *contributing* to GPL software. The trick is to find somebody wiling to pay you to add features or fix bugs for them because *they* need/want them. I.e. you get paid for your service in writing the software, rather than for the software itself.
Probably the bulk of total income earned that way is for folks like the programmers at Red Hat (and countless businesses who just need to use the software, and upstream improvements so they don't have to port them to every upgrade themselves) for whom making such improvements is a traditional job. There's also bounty programs, Patreon-style funding, and several other "non-traditional" approaches that are being tried.