Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.

[concernedfossdev at teknik.io]

> 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.

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.

> They want the code you have yet to produce, but they will try to prevent
> you from producing it.
> 
> Then if you do manage to produce it on your own, they want it, and if
> they like it after all, they will take it.
> 
> And that is the issue I have with Linux.

The Techies have been saying this: "grsecurity sucks, but they can do this, GPL is the BSD license
aslong as you have the presence of mind to draft an NDA"

The other side of the legal debate has been saying this: "grsecurity is vital, we don't want it to
go closed, if it is closed it is useless to us, it is sad to see free software become unfree, it is
like the end of a dream and the GPL was _supposed_ to prevent this. We do NOT want to return to the
shareware days and the good thing about free / opensource software, the magic, was that is _was_
fully featured software that was fully open and was of no cost: the only cost was the labor we all
contributed and was contributed back".

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.