91–100 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Along with that Grsec then says that if while the patch is GPLv2 if you distribute them they'll never let you subscribe again to get the patch in the future.
That's a pretty interesting loophole in the GPL: apparently (at least with V2), it might be fine to impose consequences for exercising your rights while technically giving them to you. It certainly violates the spirit of the GPL even if it doesn't violate the letter.
Mailing list is not the code.
If he starts filtering on the web server or rejecting direct source requests, he starts violating the letter of GPL 2.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the company that produces grsecurity engages in the unethical (and potentially illegal) Unethical, probably - illegal, probably not. The GPL dictates what you can do once code hits your hands (or binaries compiled with), it doesn't prevent companies from selling it to you or what contract they do it under.
That depends on how you read section 6 of the GPL2. It states in part: > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. The central right granted under the GPL is, of course, the right to modify and redistribute the source. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certain that Grsecurity could find a number of legal arguments that what they're doing is allowed (likely starting…
Someone will have to set up an automatic snail mailer.
If they do not respect that, they are explicitly violating GPL.
Guess you lack the level of abstraction capabilities I expect. Sure. The parable is just about lies and not signals and noises. All Linus rants are full of information. He is a brilliant programmer. Everything he screams and shouts about is always correct. He has never confused a raccoon with a wolf.
You're not using the term "crying wolf" correctly[1]. It has a very specific meaning in English, and that is what my complaint is in relation to. No amount of personal derision about how I "lack the level of abstraction capabilities" (whatever that means) will change that you are using the phrase incorrectly. I even specifically said that I agree that we need less difficult personalities in kernel development. It's q…
> (idiomatic) To raise a false alarm; to constantly warn others about an imagined threat, thereby failing to get assistance when a real threat appears.
The imagined threat is the level of quality in patches. He consistently raises false alarms about the quality of patches. The false part being the absolute terms he uses about the character of the people that proposed the patches. Calling someone an infantile moron qualifies as falsehood in my book and counts as raising a false alarm. Now that he is complaining about grsecurity I'm not inclined to listen because the level of alarm he has used previously has been incommensurate with reality, as in he has said "here is a wolf" (this patch is the worst thing ever and the person that wrote it is a moron) when in reality there was no wolf (patch was actually fine and the person was not a moron). Less alarmism would have helped everyone involved get along better and make a more secure kernel. Instead I'm arguing about how comparing his alarmism to crying wolf is or isn't idiomatic. FML
A genuine question: Why isn't it perfectly reasonable to accept to break compatibility in order to increase security? Isn't that what we do in our lifes all the time? When the authorities issue new fire safety regulations for buildings, then that is breaking compatibility to the older building standard. We still do it because there is good reason. Sometimes even old buildings need to be retrofitted, and that is then…
It is, and he's wrong, and he's usually wrong when security comes up. See also git using SHA-1: people warned him about this, and he argued passionately and incorrectly that git doesn't use SHA-1 as an integrity measure. He also argued passionately and incorrectly that SHA-1 was unlikely to be broken and worrying about it was a waste of effort. And now other people are doing a lot of slow work to dig ourselves out of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the company that produces grsecurity engages in the unethical (and potentially illegal) Unethical, probably - illegal, probably not. The GPL dictates what you can do once code hits your hands (or binaries compiled with), it doesn't prevent companies from selling it to you or what contract they do it under.
Sure you can sell it, and under whatever terms you like. But you have to _also_ provide the full source under the GPL, not under "the GPL with additional constraints". I'm no lawyer, but I highly doubt it'll hold. And buying Linux from them could be very toxic as "GPL violation" => "termination of license" -- and I'm not sure how you go about getting a new license :)
Guess you lack the level of abstraction capabilities I expect. Sure. The parable is just about lies and not signals and noises. All Linus rants are full of information. He is a brilliant programmer. Everything he screams and shouts about is always correct. He has never confused a raccoon with a wolf.
You're not using the term "crying wolf" correctly[1]. It has a very specific meaning in English, and that is what my complaint is in relation to. No amount of personal derision about how I "lack the level of abstraction capabilities" (whatever that means) will change that you are using the phrase incorrectly. I even specifically said that I agree that we need less difficult personalities in kernel development. It's q…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crying wolf requires him to have been wrong (or lied). I think that GP was asking you for evidence of _that_, not of evidence that Linus has ranted in the past. From memory, I can't recall a time where his ranting was not justified, but he has been wrong a couple of times. Unless I'm missing something blatant, that doesn't constitute "crying wolf" to me.
The parable of the boy crying wolf is not about lies but about desensitizing your audience to what you are saying. I've read enough of the rants to know there is very little signal to all the noise he makes. The grsecurity stuff could be bad but I sure as hell am not gonna get my analysis from Linus. If he acted more like a grown up then maybe but he doesn't. He character assassinates and then says you are doing sill…
BSD is more liberal than GNU/Linus