Name: Anonymous 2017-12-13 10:20
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/12/02/supplying-legal-notices-free-software/id=90395/
A little while ago, Tanenbaum wrote a memo bragging smuggly about how his software and its permissive nature lent itself to the agenda of industry giant Intel. That isn't something we haven't heard before; lots of copycenter ``open source" advocates value the flexible quality of such copycenter licenses as MIT, Apache, and the multiple, distinct BSD licenses in existence.
We often don't see the same issue with copycenter as we do with copyleft licenses such as GPL3 where corporations will try to conceal the fact that they're using copyleft code, in part because it's easier for licenses like the LGPL and MIT to coexist with proprietary code. Their argument is logical and actually reasonable from a certain perspective, but this case is special, because, in spite of how few restrictions that came with Minix3, Intel still selfishly decided to abuse those freedoms by not providing the notices required by the license. This is a slightly ironic issue, because the notices would obviously not nullify the injustices done by distributing the Management Engine, but it just illustrates the naivite that open sores proponents push, that free software can coexist with proprietary entities, whose sole interest, most of the time, is just pleasing their shareholders. This admittedly minor issue punctures a huge hole in their agenda.
The GPL ``virus" is such because it's not an altruistic license. It's the exact opposite of altruistic: the GPL is incredibly pessimistic, despite what the GNU manifesto might have you believe. It's a license born out of historically justifiable distrust towards proprietary software entities who want nothing more but to alienate programmers from eachother and turn a profit thereby. In the realm of penetration testing--``cyber security"--it's widely accepted that any flaw or exploit no matter how infinitesimally small it might be becomes a practical inevitability when a piece of software is deployed among thousands of machines and used a million times a day. When a power structure is such that there's incentive for one entity to abuse another, it becomes an inevitability, not just a possibility. Wozniak-types like that of the open sores community believe in altruism and benevolent dictatorship. I don't doubt the viability of such a relationship, nor do I pretend like such a symbiosis hasn't happened in the past--it's good to keep an open mind, but don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out when you rest your head.
A little while ago, Tanenbaum wrote a memo bragging smuggly about how his software and its permissive nature lent itself to the agenda of industry giant Intel. That isn't something we haven't heard before; lots of copycenter ``open source" advocates value the flexible quality of such copycenter licenses as MIT, Apache, and the multiple, distinct BSD licenses in existence.
We often don't see the same issue with copycenter as we do with copyleft licenses such as GPL3 where corporations will try to conceal the fact that they're using copyleft code, in part because it's easier for licenses like the LGPL and MIT to coexist with proprietary code. Their argument is logical and actually reasonable from a certain perspective, but this case is special, because, in spite of how few restrictions that came with Minix3, Intel still selfishly decided to abuse those freedoms by not providing the notices required by the license. This is a slightly ironic issue, because the notices would obviously not nullify the injustices done by distributing the Management Engine, but it just illustrates the naivite that open sores proponents push, that free software can coexist with proprietary entities, whose sole interest, most of the time, is just pleasing their shareholders. This admittedly minor issue punctures a huge hole in their agenda.
The GPL ``virus" is such because it's not an altruistic license. It's the exact opposite of altruistic: the GPL is incredibly pessimistic, despite what the GNU manifesto might have you believe. It's a license born out of historically justifiable distrust towards proprietary software entities who want nothing more but to alienate programmers from eachother and turn a profit thereby. In the realm of penetration testing--``cyber security"--it's widely accepted that any flaw or exploit no matter how infinitesimally small it might be becomes a practical inevitability when a piece of software is deployed among thousands of machines and used a million times a day. When a power structure is such that there's incentive for one entity to abuse another, it becomes an inevitability, not just a possibility. Wozniak-types like that of the open sores community believe in altruism and benevolent dictatorship. I don't doubt the viability of such a relationship, nor do I pretend like such a symbiosis hasn't happened in the past--it's good to keep an open mind, but don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out when you rest your head.