1. 18

  2. 2

    “This makes grsecurity for Linux 4.9 the last version Open Source Security Inc. will release to non-subscribers.”

    So, they gonna change their name to Paid Source Security Inc or something since they’re moving away from open-source? Seems to me like they got tired of the freeloader effect to open-source software, esp by commercial sector, to point they switched to proprietary software. I’ve been encouraging more experimentation on proprietary side with paid, shared-source software for that reason. Good news is the pirates will probably get lower security which might result in embarrassments for them later on. :)

    1. 1

      Do they not still have to release the patches under the GPL to their customers? Could their customers not then distribute those patches as they see fit?

      1. 1

        Yes, but then these customers would have access to the next patches cut off swiftly. And it is GPL-compliant.

        1. 1

          That seems in rather stark opposition to the spirit of the license, if not immediately obviously the letter.

          1. 2

            I believe it’s not, as the authors of GPL seem to argue: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic, and the question 2 places below (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIDemandACopy)

        2. 1

          This post made me unclear on how open-source or proprietary it is: