Slashdot Mirror
Stuxnet/Flame/Duqu Uses GPL Code
David Gerard writes "It seems the authors of Stuxnet/Duqu/Flame used the LZO library, which is straight-up GPL. And so, someone has asked the U.S. government to release the code under the GPL. (Other code uses various permissive licenses. As works of the U.S. federal government, the rest is of course public domain.) Perhaps the author could enlist the SFLC to send a copyright notice to the U.S. government..."
That would imply that the government is ruled by law rather than the arbitrary decisions of a few "top men".
It doesn't take long for such attitudes to spread throughout society.
But hey, Obama said he would have, like, the totally most open presidency ever. Surely the new boss will prove himself different from the old boss in SOME way. Surely!
Under the GPL, only people that the executable was distributed to are allowed to request the code - and since it's a weapon, the US government isn't alliowed to send it to Iran.
Problem solved.
No, selling or not selling is irrelevant. "Distributing" is the key.
Someone with gigantic balls of steel should file a FOIA on this basis.
It would be interesting to see if the request would even be acknowledged.
What makes the idea clever is that it's a public request (and publicise the hell out of it!) and it's powered by copyright. This is why the GPL is so effective...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Distribute, not sell. (Though you absolutely have the right to sell GPL code as well, as long as you abide by the rest of the license and release your source.)
In any case, I'm guessing that one of the following things will happen:
- Some sort of secrecy / national security provision is given as a reason source cannot be released (1% probability)
- Changes to the GPL portions are released (0.01% probability)
- Stone-cold silence (98.99% probability)
Remember, the US Government hasn't even acknowledged that they created these worms. We're still firmly in the "plausible deniability" phase.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Why would you bother to acknowledge copyright? Because the people who have bought and own the US government want copyright and patents to touch every part of our lives. Buy a cell phone? You should be paying an ever increasing slice to every patent troll that crawls out of the woodwork. Buy blank media, or a blank SD card? You should be paying copyright owners a "tax" on that blank media you dirty filthy pirate! Why else, other than piracy, could you possibly be buying blank media?
/ end rant
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Obviously copyright is the most important issue of our time. Look at how much went into ACTA/SOPA/PIPA/CISPA and how little is going into fixing our education, healthcare, research and poverty issues.
The thing is, no one knows who wrote it. Sure, there is speculation that the U.S. and/or Israel did, but no one knows for sure. The simplest thing for the government to do is say "We can't because we didn't write it." Then, it falls on the asker to prove they did.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
From http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/lzo/lzodoc.php:
"Special licenses for commercial and other applications which are not willing to accept the GNU General Public License are available by contacting the author."
Just as an aside, whenever some commercial entity finds itself in violation of the GPL, people start talking like they expect the code to magically be revealed and gifted to the community. This perpetuates the lie that the GPL is viral and can "infect" closed-source code. The reality is far different. If a company is found to be in violation of the GPL, they find themselves in a copyright violation situation. This means that they must a) stop further distribution and b) potentially be held liable for monetary damages resulting from the distribution. They absolutely don't have to release their code. However if they want to continue to distribute and sell their product they will have to do one of three things: 1) remove infringing code, 2) license the infringing code under acceptable terms, possibly by paying a licensing fee to the copyright holder, or 3) release their derivative code under the GPL.
Option #4: An obscure RFC describing the implementation of TCP/IP on a 5.56x45 'jumbo frame' physical layer is drafted.
The FAQ section you linked to is specific to the LGPL. The LZO library is licensed under the GPL, which means any application that uses it, and is distributed publicly, must be released with full source licensed under the GPL. This is an important distinction between the LGPL and GPL...
Quoting the article because so far no one actually followed the link and read it (as usual).
LGPL provides a "just linking" exception and is used 99:1 instead of GPL for libraries because the GPL makes no exception for linking. If your code uses GPL code, your code must be GPL.
Generally the only people who write GPL libraries is the GNU Foundation itself, and even then they only do it when they think they have something so awesome people will adopt the GPL license to use it (like libreadline, which is).
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
5.56x45mm is the specifications for the NATO-standard small-arms ammunition, used by pretty much every modern military assault rifle that isn't a Kalashnikov derivative (and some that are), as well as some police sniper rifles and various civilian rifles.
And now I've explained the joke.
Dammit, people, that was meant to be Funny, not Insightful!