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: <1067974718.12554.96.camel@tantor.nuclearelephant.com>
From: jonathan at nuclearelephant.com (Jonathan A. Zdziarski)
Subject: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and
	transition planning

I see a couple slight modification to the GPL that would've fixed some
of the controversy around RedHat and SuSe's questionable practices, and
would certainly make it a much more fair playing field for developers:

1. The GPL license ought to require that any binary distribution of the
software _identical to the distribution media's format_  be made freely
available..  or some similar lingo that would require RedHat to make
their compilations freely available, so if they want to sell RedHat
Enterprise Linux, they must also make the CD image freely available to
anyone who only wants the media.  This would keep them from sticking
packages up on their FTP while they charge for the CD compilation.

2. The GPL should have a redistribution clause stating something to the
effect that all other software being distributed in a compilation or
distribution have a compatible license as well; e.g. SuSe can't go and
close the source for their installer or distribute GPLd packages with
any other tools that aren't open-source and freely available.  This is
basically saying, "If you want to redistribute it in binary form, you
are free to do so, but if you're going to make any money off of my
software you better make yours freely available and open-source too"

I realize companies like RH have to make a living, but their success is
completely hinged on the generosity of the open-source community...and
that demands a level of fairness for software developers that they're
not going to be "used" to make someone else rich.  There's no reason the
GPL can't be modified to continue promoting open-source/freely available
software, without giving large commercial entities the ability to screw
the community in this fashion.

> You agree in a contract that you'll only use what you get from that
> support and updates on the registered machines (for which you will pay a
> certain amount per machine).