Re: Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.
> 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.
Re: Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.
> 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.
GRSecurity, RMS, discussion excerpts
>From soylentnews: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?threshold=-1=-1=improvedthreaded=5=Change=13849#post_comment >Re:Playing lawyer (Score:2) >by darkfeline (1030) on Sunday >June 05, @06:30AM (#355471) >Homepage > >But you didn't even address my argument. In fact, your long tirade affirms >half of my argument. > >GRsec didn't violate the terms of the GPL license. The GPL license requires >them to distribute their source code to their clients under the GPL license, >which they do. > >The GPL does not require one to continue doing business with one's clients. If >that were true, for example, Google would be legally bound to keep doing >business with all Android vendors perpetually. GRsec is perfectly free to stop >doing business with anyone who redistributes their GPL licensed source code. -- Keep telling yourself that. You are not studied in the law. Accept this. You don't have the slightest clue how the law of agreements works (AKA: contracts etc) which is why you say "you haven't addressed my point!" I have. You are just too ignorant to realize that. Similar to how most western peoples are too ignorant to realize men should be free to take as brides cute young girls, as once they were prior to feminism. The fact of the matter is that GRSecurity is using the threat of an action or inaction to prevent sublicensees from enacting a privilege they have been given by the _original_ licensor to who's terms GRSecurity agreed, and to who's terms are the only thing _allowing_ GRSecurity to modify the kernel source code to create the derivative work and distribute it in the first place. Obviously once you frustrate that agreement you lose your privileges under it. This is a basic point of the law of agreements. You cannot say "I get what I want, but fk the rest of your terms", even if you are "clever" about it. The linux licensors said that any distributed derivative work shall be freely re-distributable. When you come to that license and think to yourself "haha, I shall circumnavagate that clause and cause my derivative work to NOT be redistributable in the real world" you have committed bad faith vis-a-vis the agreement and the court will not, when the licensor sues you for copyright infringement, recognize the clauses that would protect you (they will give them no effect, that is your reward for making sure that other clauses (redistribution) would be ineffectual). The linux licensors want to eventually have changes "come back" to them. They adopted the GPL for this purpose. You frustrate the use of one term, you cannot hide behind another. Very simple, I don't understand why you don't get this, they teach this in the first month or two.
GRSecurity, RMS, discussion excerpts
>From soylentnews: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?threshold=-1=-1=improvedthreaded=5=Change=13849#post_comment >Re:Playing lawyer (Score:2) >by darkfeline (1030) on Sunday >June 05, @06:30AM (#355471) >Homepage > >But you didn't even address my argument. In fact, your long tirade affirms >half of my argument. > >GRsec didn't violate the terms of the GPL license. The GPL license requires >them to distribute their source code to their clients under the GPL license, >which they do. > >The GPL does not require one to continue doing business with one's clients. If >that were true, for example, Google would be legally bound to keep doing >business with all Android vendors perpetually. GRsec is perfectly free to stop >doing business with anyone who redistributes their GPL licensed source code. -- Keep telling yourself that. You are not studied in the law. Accept this. You don't have the slightest clue how the law of agreements works (AKA: contracts etc) which is why you say "you haven't addressed my point!" I have. You are just too ignorant to realize that. Similar to how most western peoples are too ignorant to realize men should be free to take as brides cute young girls, as once they were prior to feminism. The fact of the matter is that GRSecurity is using the threat of an action or inaction to prevent sublicensees from enacting a privilege they have been given by the _original_ licensor to who's terms GRSecurity agreed, and to who's terms are the only thing _allowing_ GRSecurity to modify the kernel source code to create the derivative work and distribute it in the first place. Obviously once you frustrate that agreement you lose your privileges under it. This is a basic point of the law of agreements. You cannot say "I get what I want, but fk the rest of your terms", even if you are "clever" about it. The linux licensors said that any distributed derivative work shall be freely re-distributable. When you come to that license and think to yourself "haha, I shall circumnavagate that clause and cause my derivative work to NOT be redistributable in the real world" you have committed bad faith vis-a-vis the agreement and the court will not, when the licensor sues you for copyright infringement, recognize the clauses that would protect you (they will give them no effect, that is your reward for making sure that other clauses (redistribution) would be ineffectual). The linux licensors want to eventually have changes "come back" to them. They adopted the GPL for this purpose. You frustrate the use of one term, you cannot hide behind another. Very simple, I don't understand why you don't get this, they teach this in the first month or two.
Various Articles on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.
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] Other discussions and articles on the topic, some including legal debates, if you are interested: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-05/msg00114.html https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2016-June/016589.html https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11808914 https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4m6mm5/libreplanetdiscuss_grsecurity_is_preventing/ https://sys.8ch.net/tech/res/605120.html http://boards.4chan.org/g/thread/54839391 http://endchan.xyz/tech/res/4339.html http://lwn.net/Articles/689385/
Various Articles on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.
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] Other discussions and articles on the topic, some including legal debates, if you are interested: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-05/msg00114.html https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2016-June/016589.html https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11808914 https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4m6mm5/libreplanetdiscuss_grsecurity_is_preventing/ https://sys.8ch.net/tech/res/605120.html http://boards.4chan.org/g/thread/54839391 http://endchan.xyz/tech/res/4339.html http://lwn.net/Articles/689385/
Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.
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]
Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.
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]
RE: (RMS responded) GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
RMS has weighed in: Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code Richard Stallman (May 31 2016 10:27 PM) [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] If I understand right, this is a matter of GPL 2 on the Linux patches. Is that right? If so, I think GRsecurity is violating the GPL on Linux. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html. GRsecurity (Brad Spengler) is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute (by threatening them with a non-renewal of a contract to recive this patch to the linux kernel.) (GRsecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel (it is a patch)) People who have dealt with them have attested to this fact: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/censorship_linux_developer_steals_page_from_ andi "You will also lose the access to the patches in the form of grsec not renewing the contract. Also they've asked us (a Russian hosting company) for $17000+ a year for access their stable patches. $17k is quite a lot for us. A question about negotiating a lower price was completely ignored. Twice." -- fbt2lurker And it is suggested to be the case here aswell: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4gxdlh/after_15_years_of_research_grsecuritys_rap_is_here "Do you work for some company that pays for Grsecurity? If so then would you kindly excersise the rights given to you by GPL and send me a tarball of all the latest patches and releases?" -- lolidaisuki "sadly (for this case) no, i work in a human rights organization where we get the patches by a friendly and richer 3rd party of the same field. we made the compromise to that 3rd party to not distribute the patches outside and as we deal with some critical situations i cannot afford to compromise that even for the sake of gpl :/ the "dumber" version for unstable patches will make a big problem for several projects, i would keep an eye on them. this situation cannot be hold for a long time" -- disturbio Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) part, with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has with the original licensor? (Also Note: the stable branch now contains features that will never make it to the "testing" branch, and are not allowed to be redistributed, per the scheme mentioned above (which has been successful: not one version of the stable branch has been released by anyone, even those asked to do so, since the scheme has been put in place (they say they cannot as they cannot lose access to the patch as that may cost the lives and freedom of activists in latin america))) https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/726101158561882112 @xoreipeip @grsecurity they call it a "demo" version "20:14 < spender> what's in the public version is < 1/5th the size of the full version" oreipeip @grsecurity "20:21 < spender> also it wouldn't be as fast as the commercial version [...] there are missing optimization passes"
RE: (RMS responded) GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
RMS has weighed in: Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code Richard Stallman (May 31 2016 10:27 PM) [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] If I understand right, this is a matter of GPL 2 on the Linux patches. Is that right? If so, I think GRsecurity is violating the GPL on Linux. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html. GRsecurity (Brad Spengler) is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute (by threatening them with a non-renewal of a contract to recive this patch to the linux kernel.) (GRsecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel (it is a patch)) People who have dealt with them have attested to this fact: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/censorship_linux_developer_steals_page_from_ andi "You will also lose the access to the patches in the form of grsec not renewing the contract. Also they've asked us (a Russian hosting company) for $17000+ a year for access their stable patches. $17k is quite a lot for us. A question about negotiating a lower price was completely ignored. Twice." -- fbt2lurker And it is suggested to be the case here aswell: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4gxdlh/after_15_years_of_research_grsecuritys_rap_is_here "Do you work for some company that pays for Grsecurity? If so then would you kindly excersise the rights given to you by GPL and send me a tarball of all the latest patches and releases?" -- lolidaisuki "sadly (for this case) no, i work in a human rights organization where we get the patches by a friendly and richer 3rd party of the same field. we made the compromise to that 3rd party to not distribute the patches outside and as we deal with some critical situations i cannot afford to compromise that even for the sake of gpl :/ the "dumber" version for unstable patches will make a big problem for several projects, i would keep an eye on them. this situation cannot be hold for a long time" -- disturbio Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) part, with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has with the original licensor? (Also Note: the stable branch now contains features that will never make it to the "testing" branch, and are not allowed to be redistributed, per the scheme mentioned above (which has been successful: not one version of the stable branch has been released by anyone, even those asked to do so, since the scheme has been put in place (they say they cannot as they cannot lose access to the patch as that may cost the lives and freedom of activists in latin america))) https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/726101158561882112 @xoreipeip @grsecurity they call it a "demo" version "20:14 < spender> what's in the public version is < 1/5th the size of the full version" oreipeip @grsecurity "20:21 < spender> also it wouldn't be as fast as the commercial version [...] there are missing optimization passes"
GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
GRsecurity (Brad Spengler) is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute (by threatening them with a non-renewal of a contract to recive this patch to the linux kernel.) (GRsecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel (it is a patch)) People who have dealt with them have attested to this fact: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/censorship_linux_developer_steals_page_from_ andi "You will also lose the access to the patches in the form of grsec not renewing the contract. Also they've asked us (a Russian hosting company) for $17000+ a year for access their stable patches. $17k is quite a lot for us. A question about negotiating a lower price was completely ignored. Twice." -- fbt2lurker And it is suggested to be the case here aswell: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4gxdlh/after_15_years_of_research_grsecuritys_rap_is_here "Do you work for some company that pays for Grsecurity? If so then would you kindly excersise the rights given to you by GPL and send me a tarball of all the latest patches and releases?" -- lolidaisuki "sadly (for this case) no, i work in a human rights organization where we get the patches by a friendly and richer 3rd party of the same field. we made the compromise to that 3rd party to not distribute the patches outside and as we deal with some critical situations i cannot afford to compromise that even for the sake of gpl :/ the "dumber" version for unstable patches will make a big problem for several projects, i would keep an eye on them. this situation cannot be hold for a long time" -- disturbio Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) part, with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has with the original licensor? (Also Note: the stable branch now contains features that will never make it to the "testing" branch, and are not allowed to be redistributed, per the scheme mentioned above (which has been successful: not one version of the stable branch has been released by anyone, even those asked to do so, since the scheme has been put in place (they say they cannot as they cannot lose access to the patch as that may cost the lives and freedom of activists in latin america))) https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/726101158561882112 @xoreipeip @grsecurity they call it a "demo" version "20:14 < spender> what's in the public version is < 1/5th the size of the full version" oreipeip @grsecurity "20:21 < spender> also it wouldn't be as fast as the commercial version [...] there are missing optimization passes"
GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
GRsecurity (Brad Spengler) is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute (by threatening them with a non-renewal of a contract to recive this patch to the linux kernel.) (GRsecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel (it is a patch)) People who have dealt with them have attested to this fact: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/censorship_linux_developer_steals_page_from_ andi "You will also lose the access to the patches in the form of grsec not renewing the contract. Also they've asked us (a Russian hosting company) for $17000+ a year for access their stable patches. $17k is quite a lot for us. A question about negotiating a lower price was completely ignored. Twice." -- fbt2lurker And it is suggested to be the case here aswell: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4gxdlh/after_15_years_of_research_grsecuritys_rap_is_here "Do you work for some company that pays for Grsecurity? If so then would you kindly excersise the rights given to you by GPL and send me a tarball of all the latest patches and releases?" -- lolidaisuki "sadly (for this case) no, i work in a human rights organization where we get the patches by a friendly and richer 3rd party of the same field. we made the compromise to that 3rd party to not distribute the patches outside and as we deal with some critical situations i cannot afford to compromise that even for the sake of gpl :/ the "dumber" version for unstable patches will make a big problem for several projects, i would keep an eye on them. this situation cannot be hold for a long time" -- disturbio Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) part, with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has with the original licensor? (Also Note: the stable branch now contains features that will never make it to the "testing" branch, and are not allowed to be redistributed, per the scheme mentioned above (which has been successful: not one version of the stable branch has been released by anyone, even those asked to do so, since the scheme has been put in place (they say they cannot as they cannot lose access to the patch as that may cost the lives and freedom of activists in latin america))) https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/726101158561882112 @xoreipeip @grsecurity they call it a "demo" version "20:14 < spender> what's in the public version is < 1/5th the size of the full version" oreipeip @grsecurity "20:21 < spender> also it wouldn't be as fast as the commercial version [...] there are missing optimization passes"
On the subject of GRSecurity patch to the Linux Kernel
To whom it may concern; GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute (by threatening them with a non-renewal of a contract to recive this patch to the linux kernel.) (GRsecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel (it is a patch)) People who have dealt with them have attested to this fact: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/censorship_linux_developer_steals_page_from_randi/ "You will also lose the access to the patches in the form of grsec not renewing the contract. Also they've asked us (a Russian hosting company) for $17000+ a year for access their stable patches. $17k is quite a lot for us. A question about negotiating a lower price was completely ignored. Twice." -- fbt2lurker And it is suggested to be the case here aswell: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4gxdlh/after_15_years_of_research_grsecuritys_rap_is_here/ "Do you work for some company that pays for Grsecurity? If so then would you kindly excersise the rights given to you by GPL and send me a tarball of all the latest patches and releases?" -- lolidaisuki "sadly (for this case) no, i work in a human rights organization where we get the patches by a friendly and richer 3rd party of the same field. we made the compromise to that 3rd party to not distribute the patches outside and as we deal with some critical situations i cannot afford to compromise that even for the sake of gpl :/ the "dumber" version for unstable patches will make a big problem for several projects, i would keep an eye on them. this situation cannot be hold for a long time" -- disturbio Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) part, with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has with the original licensor? (Also Note: the stable branch now contains features that will never make it to the "testing" branch, and are not allowed to be redistributed, per the scheme mentioned above (which has been successful: not one version of the stable branch has been released by anyone, even those asked to do so, since the scheme has been put in place (they say they cannot as they cannot lose access to the patch as that may cost the lives and freedom of activists in latin america))) https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/726101158561882112 @xoreipeip @grsecurity they call it a "demo" version "20:14 < spender> what's in the public version is < 1/5th the size of the full version" oreipeip @grsecurity "20:21 < spender> also it wouldn't be as fast as the commercial version [...] there are missing optimization passes"
On the subject of GRSecurity patch to the Linux Kernel
To whom it may concern; GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute (by threatening them with a non-renewal of a contract to recive this patch to the linux kernel.) (GRsecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel (it is a patch)) People who have dealt with them have attested to this fact: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/censorship_linux_developer_steals_page_from_randi/ "You will also lose the access to the patches in the form of grsec not renewing the contract. Also they've asked us (a Russian hosting company) for $17000+ a year for access their stable patches. $17k is quite a lot for us. A question about negotiating a lower price was completely ignored. Twice." -- fbt2lurker And it is suggested to be the case here aswell: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4gxdlh/after_15_years_of_research_grsecuritys_rap_is_here/ "Do you work for some company that pays for Grsecurity? If so then would you kindly excersise the rights given to you by GPL and send me a tarball of all the latest patches and releases?" -- lolidaisuki "sadly (for this case) no, i work in a human rights organization where we get the patches by a friendly and richer 3rd party of the same field. we made the compromise to that 3rd party to not distribute the patches outside and as we deal with some critical situations i cannot afford to compromise that even for the sake of gpl :/ the "dumber" version for unstable patches will make a big problem for several projects, i would keep an eye on them. this situation cannot be hold for a long time" -- disturbio Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) part, with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has with the original licensor? (Also Note: the stable branch now contains features that will never make it to the "testing" branch, and are not allowed to be redistributed, per the scheme mentioned above (which has been successful: not one version of the stable branch has been released by anyone, even those asked to do so, since the scheme has been put in place (they say they cannot as they cannot lose access to the patch as that may cost the lives and freedom of activists in latin america))) https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/726101158561882112 @xoreipeip @grsecurity they call it a "demo" version "20:14 < spender> what's in the public version is < 1/5th the size of the full version" oreipeip @grsecurity "20:21 < spender> also it wouldn't be as fast as the commercial version [...] there are missing optimization passes"
