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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAD6s_XuxF1DMovjT37GYSetYZM_WUqwnTbkC_BvcHdsGNh9X_g@mail.gmail.com> 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