Grsecurity stops issuing public patches, citing trademark abuse

by
Anonymous Coward
in linux on (#KT69)
story imageThe gurus behind the popular and respected Linux kernel hardening effort Grsecurity will stop providing their stable patches to the public. In future, only paying sponsors will get access to stable patches to shore up their kernels' defenses. The test series, unfit for production use, will however continue to be available, to avoid impacting the Gentoo Hardened and Arch Linux communities. The project's full source code will still be released to the public at large, but non-sponsors will have to pick through every update to find out what's applicable to them.

The whole situation stems from WindRiver, a subsidiary of Intel, which "has been using the grsecurity name all over its marketing material and blog posts to describe their backported, unsupported, unmaintained version in a version of Linux with other code modifications that haven't been evaluated by us for security impact." After spending several thousand on legal fees, faced with "a huge legal team, the capability to drag out the case for years" and a threat to request "all available sanctions and attorneys' fees" were the lawsuit to proceed against them, Grsecurity decided pursuing the case through the courts was not practical.

Re: Wrong (Score: 3, Insightful)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-09-11 13:20 (#M4QM)

I'm saying they are wrong.
No, that's NOT what you said... You said they were talking about GPLv3, remember? Now that I've throughly discredited that claim, you choose to switch your claim around to something else entirely.

I provided multiple sources for the non-revocability of the GPL. You've provided NO SOURCES for your claim, just your own paranoid delusions based upon very little reading of the law, and an overabundance of willful ignorance.
If the FSF was to point out flaws or errors, such utterances could be used against them in court in a case
Then they would simply keep quiet on the issue. There's no benefit to them lying. Instead, they're saying it because case law backs them up.
So they keep their mouth shut
Except they didn't keep their mouth shut. They weighed-in and specifically said the GPL (v2) is not revocable.
Why do you think the GPL has gone through 3 revisions so far?
I already listed the reasons for GPLv3. Revocablity isn't one of them.
I really don't understand how you think you can argue with me from a position of ignorance
I don't understand how you think you can argue with the legal sources I've cited, from your position of extreme ignorance. No matter how many times I prove you completely and totally wrong on one issue or another, you just ignore it and twist your claims around next time around so you don't have to acknowledge your error, and just pretend you weren't making incorrect, crazy and unsupportable claims a few minutes earlier...

And look, here's yet another source that's right on-the-nose:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-1&id=163
Post Comment
Subject
Comment
Captcha
The list red, purple, church, monkey, hotel and restaurant contains how many colors?