I've been getting credible reports that grsecurity.net is infringing the
kernel by preventing customers from redistributing the GPL code for their
patch.

What is it we want Google to do? They usually listen when I ask...

    Thanks

    Bruce

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 09:51 Rick Moen <rick@???> wrote:

> Miroslav Rovis wrote:
>
> > Heads, which is one of the marvelous thing that happened in FOSS
> > lately, and it happened in the Devuan realm of OSes, remains, on top
> > of completely free, secured with grsecurity, and not via the Schmoog
> > underhanded ripoff of grsecurity code...
>
> Point of information: Wind River (now a subsidiary of Intel) was also
> guilty of the same thing, shipping an old release of grsecurity with
> backported patches applied to an old kernel, calling the resulting
> commercial product 'Carrier Grade Profile for Wind River Linux'
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20140521162030/http://www.windriver.com:80/announces/security_carrier_grade_profile/
> (without even acknowledging grsecurity's trademark).
>
> And also VeriFone (according to spender)
> https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3938&p=13940#p13940
>
> Also the Intel/ARM alliance took grsecurity code without credit.
> http://openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/05/03/1
>
> Etc.
>
> So, in short, it wasn't just Google, but a widespread problem. Google
> was just the last straw for spender & co.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>