On 06/15/2017 03:38 PM, deloptes wrote: > Richard Owlett wrote: > >> On 06/15/2017 02:10 PM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Hmm, am I feeding the spammer? [snip] >> >> Likely >> >>> >>> PS: aconcernedfossdev doesn't "command" much respect in my mind, >>> especially with no better explanation of the problem than what I read >>> here. >> >> +1 > > The story behind is really interesting and pretty long. I read about the > conflict perhaps 1/2y ago. Some of the accusations by GRSec make sense, > however they do not justify their policy. This is the first I've heard of an issue, however, I'm not really plugged in to that type of news, so it is not surprising.
> In fact this is the best proof (IMO) how decentralized and open > idea/project/work etc fails. It fails on both ends the Linux and the GRSec > end because the first is not motivated to do good and the second to do good > for free it fails badly. > I do however think GRSec are wrong as the OP states, they clearly violate > the license agreements. > IMO everyone in the linux community should know the background of that story > same as the background of systemd ... but there is sooo much to know Perhaps you could post a link where some of us can bone up on the issue? > > regards > > > -- 73's, WB5VQX -- The Very Quick X-ray
