Grsecurity – FAQ about RAP

Re:Grsecurity – FAQ about RAP by AstralStorm on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @03:13AM (#13363468)

The abuse of GCC GPLv3 license here is great. (The eligible compilation process is interpreted very tight. ) FSF getting hamstrung by themselves.

The profit motive is obvious due to a lack of yet easier implementation of the idea for Clang and LLVM.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Grsecurity – FAQ about RAP by leni536 on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @03:48AM (#13363557)

I wouldn't say it's that great (both technically and in spirit).

> As sole copyright holder on the RAP plugin itself, the PaX Team is only licensing the full version under a GPLv3 license to commercial customers to permit legal compilation of userland binaries.

So technically nothing stops commercial customers to redistribute the sources in GPLv3. You can't just give out exclusive GPLv3 licenses, it doesn't make any sense.

Also where can I download the "public RAP demo"?

edit: IANAL

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Grsecurity – FAQ about RAP by blockoperation on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @04:35AM (#13363722)

> Also where can I download the "public RAP demo"?

I assume that's the version that comes with the PaX/grsec kernel patches, in which case it's this:

https://github.com/minipli/linux-grsec/tree/v4.8.17-pax/scri...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Grsecurity – FAQ about RAP by gbuk2013 on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @06:52AM (#13364194)

My guess is that there could be some contractual agreement to forbid sharing of the GPLv3 source?

It is an interesting "hack" though and I would also like to know the answer (for no reason other than curiosity - I have no use for this software).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Grsecurity – FAQ about RAP by CrLf on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @07:45AM (#13364415)

> My guess is that there could be some contractual agreement to forbid sharing of the GPLv3 source?

That would negate the GPLv3 itself. What they (the PaX team) can do is provide an exception (like GCC does) to let the client use it while not having their (the client's) own code infected by the GPLv3.

The client would still be entitled to distribute the software they got from the PaX team to another party, which would receive it under the same terms.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Grsecurity – FAQ about RAP by icebraining on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @04:24AM (#13363680)

FSF getting hamstrung by themselves.

How so? The users of the binaries are getting a GPLv3 licensed copy of the sources, so the FSF's mission is fulfilled.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Grsecurity – FAQ about RAP by AstralStorm on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @06:09AM (#13364044)

You cannot publish binaries built with your version as it has not been built with an "eligible compilation process".

That's the gist. IANAL. Ask FSF what they think about it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Grsecurity – FAQ about RAP by CrLf on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @07:35AM (#13364364)

Why not? The "eligible compilation process" only covers the case where you wish to distribute your binaries under terms other than GPLv3. In other words, using a non-eligible compilation process forces you to redistribute binaries under the GPLv3.

If commercial clients get a GPLv3 license from the PaX team, they are entitled (in fact forced) to distribute binaries under that same license, and whoever gets them can ask for the source and then proceeed in doing the same.

GPLv3 working as planned.

(Also, remember that the main difference in the GPLv3 vs. GPLv2 is that the former considers SaaS as a form of distribution, so SaaS users can ask providers for the source of any GPLv3 software they might be using while providing the service.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Grsecurity – FAQ about RAP by icebraining on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @06:42AM (#13364162)

Yes, I realize what happened (though, nitpicking, only because they link those binaries to GNU libraries).

What I don't understand is why you're saying that FSF is hamstrung. Seems like the process is working as intended.

[ Parent | on HN ]