News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Important Notice Regarding Public Availability of Stable ... by cortesoft on Wednesday August 26, 2015 @08:20PM (#10126784)
I think he means that it is unfair because the abusive companies are releasing an insecure and untested version of grsecurity, while using the grsecurity brand name in their advertising. This means that any vulnerabilities discovered will hurt the grsecurity brand, making customers trust it less, and hurting the actual legit sponsors using a real secure version of grsecurity.

It is similar to how any knock-off of a brand could hurt the brand; a crappier version of something that people will now associate with the real brand.

Re:Important Notice Regarding Public Availability of Stable ... by RaleyField on Wednesday August 26, 2015 @08:29PM (#10126835)
Grsecurity has been here for a while and I don't think common people know of it at all, they hardly know of what Linux is and half of them run it on their phones. Those who know of it will also understand that running outdated versions on outdated kernels isn't a fault of Grsecurity. Grsecurity isn't really a brand or needs to be defended.
Re:Important Notice Regarding Public Availability of Stable ... by throwaway000002 on Wednesday August 26, 2015 @10:08PM (#10127132)
That defence of the "meaning" of the trademark is not up to you to decide, that's for the owners of Grsecurity.

Similarly, Google presents its derivative work as Android, and it exercises its rights vigorously to defend the perception of its marque.

Re:Important Notice Regarding Public Availability of Stable ... by RaleyField on Thursday August 27, 2015 @06:41AM (#10128579)
> not up to you to decide

Obviously, I'm just pointing out the fact that there are different groups of users for both products and one group isn't likely to be influenced by how others use the trademarked goods. Android has common people for its clientele, Grsecurity has security professionals that will judge it based on its intrinsic merit and not on what some subsidiary of Intel once did with it. Grsecurity de facto doesn't need to be defended, even if de jure they are entitled to the protection. That's why this is nothing but a money grab, what bothers me though is that they try to package it into something that it is not.