Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.

Xen list at
Wed Jul 6 06:50:08 UTC 2016

Well thank you for your words, and apologies for not getting back soon 

concernedfossdev at schreef op 07-06-2016 9:56:
>> My own life in the Linux world is constant opposition.
>> Every idea you bring to the table, gets shot down.
>> You get no support for anything you want to do. If it doesn't agree 
>> with
>> them, you've already lost.
> I have encountered the same thing.
> It is known as "design by committee" in other fields.

Right. Good thing to know, I guess. I can understand what that term 
means, yes.

You can only design something if other people agree with it.

> The solution I found is to just fork the FOSS games and never look 
> back.
> It's so much easier to get things done when you're the only one, 
> at-least
> once the original code-base has what you want from it. No months long
> discussions for each new game feature, no meeting half way, etc.

I concur. Coding seems a hell of a lot faster than dealing with people. 
I often consider that the slowness and inefficiency of the Linux world 
is due to the difficulty of getting people on the same line. If you 
spend 80% of your time negating the difficulties of people, then there 
is not much left for actual work (or thinking, and designing, and 

> You aren't supposed to make money with libre software really: the
> whole point is that I hack on it,
> and give it away, you hack on it, and give it away (and back), etc etc 
> etc.

Look, Linus has said that the only thing he wanted for the kernel to be 
"here is my work, have it, if you work on it I want it back too".

And I agree with that, because it is a personal statement of his.

It's how he feels. And I love how he feels. But how he feels is not a 
philosophical position without merit based only on principles that need 
to be followed to the letter. I have not seen his opinion on this, and 
without his opinion, everything else is rather moot, I think.

I mean you can ask Stallman but Stallman is a GPL 3 person and Linus is 
a GPL 2 person.

But he also said that he stepped away from the no-money thing, and that 
he Likes Linux to be Used on Embedded devices or places where strict 
agreement to the Law is not possible. He's not so very strict about it 
in that sense. As long as it is getting used, he is happy.

> It was NOT supposed to be shareware, or a "preview". If someone wants
> that: just do not base your
> derivative work on opensource "copylefted" works.

That is just much too strict. If you don't want your copylefted works to 
be used, then don't publish them. Keep them to yourself, and no one can 
ever abuse them.

See, dissemination and the spreading of things might come at a risk if 
you see it like that, but ANY idea put into the world (and this is about 
ideas as well) runs the "risk" of being taken on for things you did not 
imagine yet, and this is what free people do: they take something, and 
run with it.

If you see a child running off with some candy from your table, are you 
not charmed?

So you CANNOT say: I want my work to be everywhere in the farthest 
corner of the universe, but I STILL want to control EVERYTHING ANYONE 
EVER DOES WITH IT. Come on, that is not possible, and not realistic, and 
not fair to the workings of the universe either.

What if your source makes it to Alpha Centauri A, and people start 
working on it, and "don't contribute back", are you going to be pissed? 

There comes a point where it is out of your hands. Just as a 
philosophical discussion here, something to just be aware of. It's gonna 
happen at some point, better be prepared for it. The whole idea of 
copyright is ludicrous to begin with.

Copyright implies that humanity owns the entire universe and can devise 
laws for the Entirety of It.

Real advanced people don't base themselves on copyright. They base 
themselves on a rule of damage and affect. They will just consider their 
free choice on the damage it might do to another. And if it doesn't do 
any damage to their mind, or any damage is insignificant as to the 
benefit, they will just do that thing. And not care about what you 

This is called being your own authority. I also do not trust Let's 
Encrypt ;-).

Still of course you can make a deal with yourself as to what you want 
and don't want, but I have already said my arguments here.

> It would be better if GRSecurity, and any other important opensource
> software, were abandoned by
> it's author than for it to become closed source but still be developed:

There is software not being repackaged that the author wants back, and 
open source people are not giving it back:

They claim ownership and custody over a package they are unwilling to 

The thing had a "time bomb" expiry notice. They want to just remove the 
notice and get on with life.

Repackaging a newer version is apparently not an option to them, not 
being considered.

What good does abandoning do? If something falls to pieces. If current 
ownership falls away......

Iraq can only become a whole country again if it first allows it self to 
completely fall apart. When leadership falls away, sometimes you must go 
on in parts, and it gets fragmented. Maybe it can be recuperated. After 
a while. But expect a year or 6 where nothing much good will come out of 
the project after falling into pieces.

You would expect parts of it to be incorporated into various pieces.

But the whole of it will be abandoned indeed. And then a new Spender 
must arise to take on the new project in a new direction. And then the 
cycle repeats itself?

Let's call it reassembly. It is a natural occurance of life.

You don't have to fight it. But I don't see a reason to create it 
either. Don't help bad fate, it will do its work on its own.

> If it were abandoned there would be a _chance_ that some other dev
> would pick it up.
> If it just goes closed source, that chance is diminished because the
> original dev can always out
> code any new devs and the new guys on the open-fork would become
> dejected and fail and we would be
> left with no grsecurity (as the closed one would be the only one) and
> a worthless kernel because it
> cannot be secured.

While what you is true: a vacant spot can be filled, but a filled spot 
cannot.... perhaps you can also simply persuade that developer to give 
more of his code back to the kernel. Previously there was no desire for 
it, apparently.

Maybe people are now more accepting? I am sure he wouldn't mind at all 
more acceptance of his work to begin with. If you are not being 
accepted, why should you care about the whining of those who feel left 
behind? They did it to themselves.

Stop whining then, be a man (or girl).

You don't first turn someone away and then when he walks away, you cry 
after him that he is violating your rights to a bright future but except 
you never envisioned him to be part of it, you just wanted to profit 
from his work without having to do anything for it.

(If that doesn't sound like a girl, I don't know what ....).

> This debate's goal, from the beginning, is to head off the closing of
> grsecurity, to plead with
> Spender to not leave the FreeSoftware reservation, to not contribute
> to the sharewareization of
> libre software.

A debate doesn't really have a goal if it is an open debate. It may have 
a mission for the person who started it. But the moment it becomes a 
debate, it might just as well be the mission of another person to do or 
achieve the reverse ;-).

You cannot control or own the thoughts of every person activating in it 

And please.... libre. As a European person who knows some French, that 
is such an affront. But still, okay, whatever you want.

The kernel predates the term "libre" by the way.

And if libre is so important, why not let people do what they want, 
then? I mean, is that not what "libre" is about? Freedom?

Or do you feel you must claim you freedom at the behest of the 
imprisonment of others? Do you trust the human? Do you trust the human 
to do what is right if not continually monitored and restricted? Do you 
feel you must achieve freedom through laws that have as their only 
function and purpose to restrict pople and to restrict their movement?

Is peace the result of war? And of ongoing war, against the human being, 
and what it would want and do, if left to its own, to its own devices? 
Can you ever trust human beings to do what is right on their own? And do 
you think this guy could do it? Perhaps have a little more confidence, 
and also a little more persuasion, because if you feel you have a better 
way to do things, I am sure he would listen to it. You are not out there 
on your own, and neither is he, you are there together.

So do things together, and come to a solution together.

If you feel that he is abusing his powers, say so. I have attributed to 
that. But. Thus far I haven't heard you talk about actual consequence in 
this matter right here now, but only about general principle of what is 
wrong to do. Focus perhaps on actual consequences first now. Try to see 
the results of this behaviour right now, and not of overarching design 
goals for the Linux world you want to have.

There is nothing left to see what is going on, and to "not let your 
sight be clouded by eyes of hate".

I wish you could look at actual consequence and nothing else. Because if 
you do not, you will sacrifice life for principle.

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list