Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

GRSecurity Linux Kernel Patch to End Public Accessability of Stable Patches.

posted by cmn32480 on Monday September 07 2015, @08:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the the-GPL-is-open-to-interpretation dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Grsecurity® is an extensive security enhancement to the Linux kernel that defends against a wide range of security threats through intelligent access control, memory corruption-based exploit prevention, and a host of other system hardening that generally require no configuration. It has been actively developed and maintained for the past 14 years. Commercial support for grsecurity is available through Open Source Security, Inc.

In a big red block at the top of their home page is the following warning:

Important Notice Regarding Public Availability of Stable Patches
Due to continued violations by several companies in the embedded industry of grsecurity®'s trademark and registered copyrights, effective September 9th 2015 stable patches of grsecurity will be permanently unavailable to the general public. For more information, read the full announcement.

And I thought GRSecurity was based on the GPL'd work called "Linux". Guess I was wrong.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
GRSecurity Linux Kernel Patch to End Public Accessability of Stable Patches. | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 42 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08 2015, @02:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08 2015, @02:20PM (#233782)

    GPLv2 doesn't even have a no-revocation clause. Licenses are revokable at will. The only hope for a non-revokable GPLv2 is that it is somehow a contract (where the parties have never met and there seems to be no consideration on atleast one side of the "agreement"....)... in-which case since its not fully-integrated extrinsic evidince can be brought in to show that, no, the rights-holders never intended derivative works to be able to be closed.

    GPLv3 was published for a reason