>On the bad side, the GPL muddies the waters for >honest companies that want to save money by using >some open source software, but are afraid of >inadvertantly GPLing their code.
Well., when a software company does not want to give its source out., it is definitely not helping the community. Then why should it benefit from the community? When a company is hesitating to release its source code to the users., then there is nothing honest about it.
This comment clearly shows M$'s varying policy towards Free Software. First it was 'Ignore'. Then when it started itching their profits too much they start to 'Blam'. Now they console themselves.. dunno how they'll react when they lose completely....
".. When we have enuf free software at our calll... hackers., at our callllllll... we'll kick those dirty licenses for ever more........ hackers., ever moreeeeeeeee....." -- Freedom song
Boy., I get an idea. I think I'll patent the art of reading& writing. No one patented it before (though 80% of the world knows how to do it). OK everybody listen to this., "any body who plan to read or write any text gotto send me $10 and get written permission to write". Aint I a genuis??? (following the path of IBM):|
But hey., today someone spotted the problem. And morover it is not in all the source trees. Its just the source tree at that specific site. Other trees are fine. That simply means, that the specific site is insecure. Morover if it was at some M$ project., no one would have noticed it. It would have been released to the public with the bug..
Many people do find out bugs on Windows., but M$ dosent bother to fix them until an exploit occurs. A good example is the recent Blaster Worm which exploited an RPC bug which was published by CERT before the patch was available.
Slashdot Mirror
>On the bad side, the GPL muddies the waters for
>honest companies that want to save money by using
>some open source software, but are afraid of
>inadvertantly GPLing their code.
Well., when a software company does not want to give its source out., it is definitely not helping the community. Then why should it benefit from the community? When a company is hesitating to release its source code to the users., then there is nothing honest about it.
This comment clearly shows M$'s varying policy towards Free Software. First it was 'Ignore'. Then when it started itching their profits too much they start to 'Blam'. Now they console themselves.. dunno how they'll react when they lose completely....
".. When we have enuf free software at our calll... hackers., at our callllllll... we'll kick those dirty licenses for ever more........ hackers., ever moreeeeeeeee....."
-- Freedom song
If Mozilla/(other FREE browzers) dont patent it M$ will patent it.... its in their genes to do it.. :|
Boy., I get an idea. I think I'll patent the art of reading& writing. No one patented it before (though 80% of the world knows how to do it). OK everybody listen to this., "any body who plan to read or write any text gotto send me $10 and get written permission to write". Aint I a genuis??? (following the path of IBM) :|
But hey., today someone spotted the problem. And morover it is not in all the source trees. Its just the source tree at that specific site. Other trees are fine. That simply means, that the specific site is insecure. Morover if it was at some M$ project., no one would have noticed it. It would have been released to the public with the bug..
Many people do find out bugs on Windows., but M$ dosent bother to fix them until an exploit occurs. A good example is the recent Blaster Worm which exploited an RPC bug which was published by CERT before the patch was available.