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]

From: tkonefal at compt.com (Tomasz Konefal)
Subject: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and	transition
 planning

Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote:
> 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"

your proposed changes do nothing to help developers.  they only help 
freeloading users.  your second suggestion stoops very low by attempting 
to acquire the right to distribute a developer's efforts and code using 
leverage instead of ethics.  this rips off developers who do not want 
their software to be licensed with the GPL.  remember, the GPL is not 
about protecting people - it's about protecting code.

the GPL, as it stands, does what it has always set out to do - make 
source code of binaries available to developers who have legally 
acquired the binaries for further improvement or distribution.  it is 
not the intent of the licence to make anyone financially richer, to make 
things easy for end users or to burden binary distributor with the 
responsibility of supplying anyone's software 'fix', be it for features 
or security patches.

cheers,
   twkonefal

-- 
Tomasz Konefal
Systems Administrator
Command Post and Transfer Corp.
416-585-9995 x.349