Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:11:51 +0200
From: Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: INSECT Pro - Free tool for pentest - New
 version release 2.7

> even better competing product and put us out of business" and so on?  That's
> exactly what Stallman was trying to prevent with the GPL.

And the best part? He got the situation even worse.

EOF



On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:02 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:24:54 +1000, GloW - XD said:
>
> > So basically once you sign over a GPL v2 , you sign over any right to misuse
> > even the code wich you have written ?
>
> That is indeed the basic point of the GPL - once you release something under
> the GPL, everybody who receives a copy is free to use it for new and interesting
> purposes, *including ones you don't approve of*.
>
> Ever actually read the EULA on most commercial packages, where you end up
> agreeing to onerous terms like "You agree to not badmouth our company in
> public" and "you agree to not reverse engineer our code in order to make an
> even better competing product and put us out of business" and so on?  That's
> exactly what Stallman was trying to prevent with the GPL.
>
> > i guess i thought this could be scrutinized outside of the GPL via means of
> > a solicitor but, if the law is complacent about use and misse then, i guess
> > thats that and your correct, i have actually yes, used myself the CC lisence
> > and was thinking the gpl was just a simpler version but seems that is
>
> Nope, it's not "just a simpler version".  The GPL has different goals than the
> various CC licenses.  The CC tends to be very good at "I took this photo, it is
> *mine*, and you're allowed to use it as long as you don't make money off it
> that should be mine, or claim that you took it".  But that's because that was
> the CC goal.
>
> The GPL was expressly designed so that people could easily take GPL-licensed
> software, fork it, and improve it - but then be unable to take the fork
> closed-source the way you can with a BSD license.   It makes a *lot* more sense
> if you don't think of the GPL as protecting *your* rights, but protecting the
> *software's* right to be free and open. (No, software doesn't have its own
> rights in the current legal system, but the logic is easier to follow if you
> think of it as if it *did* have rights).
>
> > probably safer to go wityh CC i guess there atleast you have some say over
> > mis-use in cases where you specify wich docunments in particular, ie:
> > sourcecode1.cpp,source2.cpp and v.cpp must not be modified... the rest could
> > be.., for example.
>
> Note that going that route has its own issues.  For instance, if the person
> comes up with a really neat patch to foobar.cpp which speeds the program up by
> 400% by using a better algorithm, but it involves adding an extra parameter to
> a function call located in source2.cpp, he may be stuck. Even more importantly,
> if he finds a bug *in* source2.cpp, he may not be able to patch it because that
> would be a modification. It also doesn't address using source2.cpp *without*
> modification but for evil purposes.
>
> (At least it's not as thoroughly broken as the Gnu Free Documentation License's
> concept of "invariant sections" - consider something where the title page has
> been declared an "invariant secton" - or even better, the 'List of Changes in
> this version".  Hilarity ensues ;)
>
> Also, there's actually a *range* of CC licenses, and it *is* possible to end up
> in a situation where you want to do a remix mash-up of 4 things, but two of
> them have incompatible licenses. For instance, if two both have "share-alike",
> but one specifies "commercial use" and the other is "non-commerical", you will
> have a really hard time distributing the result.
>
> > Ohwell, that shoots any theory then of why it is even being mentioned in the
> > list, other than to potentially harm all users of tightvnc src.
>
> Bingo.  GPL violations potentially harm the users of the GPL'ed software who
> don't receive their rights (which include a right to the source code so they can
> fix/improve what you gave them).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists