/g/ - Technolo/g/y

GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute (by threatening them with a non-renewal of a contract to recive this patch to the linux kernel.)
(GRsecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel (it is a patch))

People who have dealt with them have attested to this fact:
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/censorship_linux_developer_steals_page_from_randi/
"You will also lose the access to the patches in the form of grsec not renewing the contract.  
Also they've asked us (a Russian hosting company) for $17000+ a year for access their stable patches. $17k is quite a lot for us. A question about negotiating a lower price was completely ignored. Twice." -- fbt2lurker

And it is suggested to be the case here aswell:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4gxdlh/after_15_years_of_research_grsecuritys_rap_is_here/
"Do you work for some company that pays for Grsecurity? If so then would you kindly excersise the rights given to you by GPL and send me a tarball of all the latest patches and releases?" -- lolidaisuki
"sadly (for this case) no, i work in a human rights organization where we get the patches by a friendly and richer 3rd party of the same field. we made the compromise to that 3rd party to not distribute the patches outside and as we deal with some critical situations i cannot afford to compromise that even for the sake of gpl :/
the "dumber" version for unstable patches will make a big problem for several projects, i would keep an eye on them. this situation cannot be hold for a long time" -- disturbio



Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) part, with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has with the original licensor?



(Also Note: the stable branch now contains features that will never make it to the "testing" branch, and are not allowed to be redistributed, per the scheme mentioned above (which has been successful: not one version of the stable branch has been released by anyone, even those asked to do so, since the scheme has been put in place (they say they cannot as they cannot lose access to the patch as that may cost the lives and freedom of activists in latin america)))
https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/726101158561882112
@xoreipeip @grsecurity they call it a "demo" version "20:14 &lt spender> what's in the public version is &lt 1/5th the size of the full version"
oreipeip @grsecurity "20:21 &lt spender> also it wouldn't be as fast as the commercial version [...] there are missing optimization passes"

Devuan, the once devil-may-care total fork of Debian, once linked to virulent internet sexism and gamer-gate affiliated image forums by Debian Developer Russel Coker, has mulled the option of enacting a Code of Conduct when one of its female members was insulted:

>  https://botbot.me/freenode/devuan/2016-05-25/?page=2
> jaromil  today i was scrolling through http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_...
> golinux  Well, I tried but couldn't find anybody. Then nextime popped up
> jaromil  jeez. we need to take precautions. and also I get the point from Sarah Mei we need a code of conduct on-line and later for on-site http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2015/02/01/the-fos...
> 	  its never too early for that
> 	
> golinux  One can only control one's own actions. ;)
> 	
> jaromil  ah the wise one
...
> Wizzup   he is doxed?
> jaromil  that's him. we have a dossier yes

Devuan has been criticized for taking a "who gives a damn" and "real admins do it all by hand themselves every install" attitude towards security hardening scripts, and dispise in particular any mention of the "bastille" linux hardening script (originally funded by Mandrake Linux).

Interestingly when Devuan was forming, the people behind Devuan cited the very person they are considering making the code of conduct against:

>  http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20141027
> VUA: It will be a governing body that puts the benefits of the users first, not the mystification of a "doacracy" delivering all the power to the package maintainers.
> Originally, Debian was created as a universal operating system for the users. The Free Software movement itself is there to defend users' rights. Sgryphon explains it well in this thread. ( http://www.debianuserforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=3031 )
> We will likely reproduce the governing body of Debian to follow its original mandate, with the advantage of starting small and more focused, hopefully with less pressure from the interest of commercial developers.

Why /g/ when there's /tech/?

pato dormindo

You guys ready for Infinity Now?

What should we do when things get to slow for lynxchan?