Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #184046
| 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 |
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
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