Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.

2016-06-28 Thread Shawn
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Adam Van Ymeren wrote: >> Well, about this part I can't speak for Spender and PaX team. IMOHO, >> Spender doesn't care if you share the patch to those real FLOSS >> hackers who knows the importance of contribute back to the community. > > This

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.

2016-06-28 Thread Adam Van Ymeren
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Shawn wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Adam Van Ymeren wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Shawn wrote: >>> I'm not an expert of GPL compliance. I personally don't see any GPL >>>

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.

2016-06-27 Thread Adam Van Ymeren
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Shawn wrote: > I'm not an expert of GPL compliance. I personally don't see any GPL > violation in PaX/Grsecurity. Because of some embedded vendors pissed > off PaX/Grsecurity's authors last year and then they decided stable > patch was going to

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.

2016-06-27 Thread concernedfossdev
It's all for naught on x86 however: both the Intel chipset and the AMD are backdoored (as we've known for years). ARM is also backdoored. What does that leave? Elbrus from Russia (for 7k a pop) and Leemote from China? It would be nice if an honest country would disregard the patents and just

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.

2016-06-27 Thread Shawn
I'm not an expert of GPL compliance. I personally don't see any GPL violation in PaX/Grsecurity. Because of some embedded vendors pissed off PaX/Grsecurity's authors last year and then they decided stable patch was going to customer-only, which means you could get the source code once you paid.

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.

2016-06-24 Thread Divan Santana
concernedfoss...@teknik.io writes: > Corporations are in bed with the governments. > (Think Intel's built-in professional backdoor first just known as "VPro" then > broken out as the "Intel Management Engine", which can always be remotely > re-enabled) > > You expect them to value security for

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.

2016-06-10 Thread concernedfossdev
What did you think of the guy who uns_bscribed after this message? Why would he do that? Was he thinking "damned leftists, accusing Intel of installing a backdoor into it's chipset, that's preposterous! The shiny brochures are all FAKE!" June 9 2016 3:30 AM, "IngeGNUe"

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.

2016-06-08 Thread IngeGNUe
On 06/08/16 22:01, concernedfoss...@teknik.io wrote: > Corporations are in bed with the governments. > (Think Intel's built-in professional backdoor first just known as "VPro" then > broken out as the "Intel Management Engine", which can always be remotely > re-enabled) > > You expect them to

[libreplanet-discuss] Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.

2016-06-04 Thread concernedfossdev
Soylent news published an article/discussion on GRSecurity, RMS, etc If you're interested it's here: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/06/02/214243 >RMS Responds - GRsecurity is Preventing Others From Redistributing Source Code >[UPDATED]