Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.

[Shawn]

I'm not an expert of GPL compliance. I personally don't see any GPL
violation in PaX/Grsecurity. Because of some embedded vendors pissed
off PaX/Grsecurity's authors last year and then they decided stable
patch was going to customer-only, which means you could get the source
code once you paid. It's very fair to myself. Because they need to
spend time and hire people to do the regression testing to make their
customer's production system as stable as possible. Fortunately, they
are still release test patch for public. As a user and a security
consultant, test patch is good enough to deal with the most situation
I've met.

I 'd say we are lucky to have brilliant FLOSS hackers like Spender and
PaX team in this era. Because of them, we have a very effective
solution for linux kernel security, which compares to other core
infrastructures such as firmware or compiler. Even CHIPSEC and
reproducible builds are just starting point somehow. It'd be a long
way to protect your digital freedom away from BIGBROs just like
PaX/Grsecurity in kernel field;-)

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 12:58 PM,  <concernedfossdev@teknik.io> wrote:
> Soylent news published an article/discussion on GRSecurity, RMS, etc
> If you're interested it's here:
> https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/06/02/214243
>
>>RMS Responds - GRsecurity is Preventing Others From Redistributing Source 
>>Code [UPDATED]
>
>



-- 
GNU powered it...
GPL protect it...
God blessing it...

regards
Shawn