Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.user > #184046

Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement.

From Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Newsgroups linux.debian.user
Subject Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement.
Date 2017-07-21 20:40 +0200
Message-ID <u5L0d-8jy-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <u3TuV-Kd-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <u4Vbm-7Nz-57@gated-at.bofh.it> <u54xY-5P8-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <u5irh-79y-51@gated-at.bofh.it> <u5q5s-3Gs-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Thu 20/Jul/2017 22:18:25 +0200 Fungi4All wrote:
>> > On 19/07/17 12:17, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>
>> Of course, nobody dislikes security. Making it neat and clear is another
>> question, and that"s why experiments are needed. Can we consider Linux and
>> GRSecurity as entities cooperating with each other in that respect?
> 
> GRS is a formal hierarchical organization, a very different single endity
> than the linux "thing".  A community of many different entities, in size and
> shape.  Not a formal organization, I don't think.  How can the two different
> things communicate, let alone cooperate?  Let's just home each does their
> thing and share what they do and leave it at that.

Yes, of course.  I didn't mean to propose to change anything "real" of how each
organization works.  My question was meant to check if we can consider GRS to
be good although somehow misguided, and if it could be viable for them to
double-license their code (by some tricky clause, e.g. section 7 of GPLv3?)

Disclaimer: I'm not involved in either organization's copyrights.

Allowing GPL infringements makes "us" look like jackasses :-/

> For linux we all need to agree before we decide.

Yeah, that's a pita.  It's hard to change anything if everyone can veto.

Ale

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> - 2017-06-19 21:00 +0200
  Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-06-19 21:40 +0200
    Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-06-28 04:10 +0200
      Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-07-10 17:40 +0200
      Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org> - 2017-07-14 20:20 +0200
        Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-07-14 22:30 +0200
          funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org> - 2017-07-15 19:30 +0200
            Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-16 13:50 +0200
              Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-07-16 17:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-19 13:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-07-19 23:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-20 14:10 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> - 2017-07-20 22:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-21 20:40 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 03:40 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:00 +0200
              Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org> - 2017-07-17 00:50 +0200
              Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 03:00 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@ebb.org> - 2017-07-17 21:40 +0200
  Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 00:20 +0200
    Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:50 +0200
      Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Nick Boyce <nick@steelyglint.org> - 2017-07-20 16:20 +0200

csiph-web