full-disclosure - Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update andtransition 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <1067971742.12554.74.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>
From: jonathan at nuclearelephant.com (Jonathan A. Zdziarski)
Subject: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update
	andtransition planning

> Well, yes, you should.  If I've released my book as "open source" under
> the GPL, then by contract I have specifically authorized you to
> repackage it and sell it in any form you want so long as you don't alter
> my work.  Want you cannot do is claim that the original work is yours.
> And you can't prevent anyone else from taking that same book and
> repackaging it and selling it.
> 
> You just don't understand the GPL.

I understand it just fine...perhaps you should read my previous threads
=\

This (redistribution) is the inherent problem with the GPL, that is
resulting in the community being ripped off, rather than benefiting the
community.  Despite the popular terminology, a GPLd book is not an
open-source book - ALL books are open source books because you can READ
their "source code".  Do not summarize the GPL as "open source" and do
not confuse "freely available" or "freely redistributable" with open
source either.  They are three very different philosophies that have
been compiled into what we know as the GPL.  The open-source and freely
available portions of the GPL are great, but my whole argument has been
what you stated...the "freely redistributable" section sucks, and needs
to be reworked to prevent commercialization of otherwise free code.  In
real life, if you wrote a book, you wouldn't want someone to be able to
take your hard, donated work and sell it to someone as part of a
collection...but this is essentially what the GPL is allowing companies
like RH to do.

If you DO want people to take your hard, donated work and sell it as
part of a collection (rather than the collection have to be free or
cost-of-media) - fine...the GPL will suit you well, but you are doing a
disservice to the community in the long run, just as the GPL+RedHat has
done here.