full-disclosure - Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1067958672.12554.21.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>
From: jonathan at nuclearelephant.com (Jonathan A. Zdziarski)
Subject: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and
	transition planning

> But the author does benefit through increased distribution of code.

Wow.  And the distributor benefits through increased profit.

> And, if that little wrapper is an improvement, then it must be
> distributed as code.  From that, the author may benefit as well.

Let the author of the wrapper distribute their wrapper without the app
if they're making a profit on it...or work something out with the
author.

> As an author, you can release your code under whatever you want. 

True, but if you have a proprietary license instead of a standardized
license, it's unlikely that commercial organizations will touch it (even
the ones you want to).

>  The whole point of the GPL is to keep code open now, AND in the future.  If
> you want that, then it is perfect for you.  In fact, it is almost the
> embodiment of the spirit of original Copyright.  Have you ever been
> given a book that allows you to know what was in it, but doesn't show
> you the words?  Sound rediculous? 

I agree all code should be kept open...but I shouldn't be able to
download someone else's book online and then sell it, now should I?

> And how the hell am I supposed to enforce my copyright on other
> companies if the code they write, under copyright, is only released as
> binaries? 

I agree...I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the
open-source aspect of the GPL, only in its licensing for redistribution.