If you wanted to ensure that code be shared back into your projects, you'd use a copyleft-style license instead of a BSD/MIT-style license, wouldn't you?
So if I write some code and want it and future versions to be available under the BSD license I should GPL it? That does not make sense.
Say that I am for free speech, and you are for free speech with the one exception that it should not be allowed to argue against free speech. Would you say that I am wrong to want unlimited free speech, and if I want to ensure that you don't argue against it then I must be against free speech? No, I can still be of the opinion that you have the right to your opinions even if I don't share them.
There were two issues here. First there was a patch that removed the BSD license. This is of course not allowed, only the copyright holder can do that. That patch was rejected.
The other issue is that new additions are GPL licensed. This is legal. However, it is hypocritical since the point of GPL is to use legal means for the moral goals that derivative works should be available under the conditions the original author wants. In this case however the GPL is used to force derivative works not to be available according to the original autors wishes.
When they smoked in the non-smoking section it was easy to tell them to stop, even though it usually meant that they were angry with you afterwards.
What really was annoying was when smokers had seats in the non-smoking section and went to the smoking section for a smoke. Then they came back to the non-smoking section, stinking almost as bad as if the cigarette was still lit. I can imagine that the smokers that abode to the rules were annoyed by that as well.
No. True one time pads are informational theoretically secure. If you don't know the key, any given ciphertext can "decrypt" into any plaintext of the same length and it's not possible to determine which is correct. For this to be true the OTP must have been generated from true randomness - not a PRNG or stream cipher which is sometimes advertised as OTP.
Note that there are attacks against OTP such as bit-flipping attacks, traffic analysis, mounting a camera pointing to the screen, rubber hose cryptanalysis etc. An OTP is only provably secure if the adversary only has the ciphertext but nothing else.
Quantum computing can theoretically be used to break stuff like RSA by implementing Shor's algorithm. It would require much more powerful quantum computers than we have today though. I doubt that we'll see powerful enough quantum computers this century if at all.
It is of course theoretically possible to factor large numbers with conventional computers, it'd just take a long, long, long, long time or you'd have to be extremely lucky.
I haven't kept up to date with this field lately, but I believe it's still not known whether it will be possible for a quantum computer to break symmetrical ciphers. It's theoretically possible to break them (with or without quantum computers) as long as the encrypted message is longer than the unicity distance; an often misunderstood concept that's defined in Claude E. Shannon's A Mathematical Theory of Communication from 1948.
Quantum encryption - which is really quantum key exchange - can be used to exchange an OTP. This would create an unbreakable cipher if you define "unbreakable" to mean "cannot be deciphered." It may still be possible to mount bit-flipping attacks etc. Quantum encryption is not very practical today though, and it's only useful in very few situations. It's interesting research which perhaps may someday result in more practical applications.
Slashdot Mirror
So if I write some code and want it and future versions to be available under the BSD license I should GPL it? That does not make sense.
Say that I am for free speech, and you are for free speech with the one exception that it should not be allowed to argue against free speech. Would you say that I am wrong to want unlimited free speech, and if I want to ensure that you don't argue against it then I must be against free speech? No, I can still be of the opinion that you have the right to your opinions even if I don't share them.
There were two issues here. First there was a patch that removed the BSD license. This is of course not allowed, only the copyright holder can do that. That patch was rejected.
The other issue is that new additions are GPL licensed. This is legal. However, it is hypocritical since the point of GPL is to use legal means for the moral goals that derivative works should be available under the conditions the original author wants. In this case however the GPL is used to force derivative works not to be available according to the original autors wishes.
When they smoked in the non-smoking section it was easy to tell them to stop, even though it usually meant that they were angry with you afterwards. What really was annoying was when smokers had seats in the non-smoking section and went to the smoking section for a smoke. Then they came back to the non-smoking section, stinking almost as bad as if the cigarette was still lit. I can imagine that the smokers that abode to the rules were annoyed by that as well.
No. True one time pads are informational theoretically secure. If you don't know the key, any given ciphertext can "decrypt" into any plaintext of the same length and it's not possible to determine which is correct. For this to be true the OTP must have been generated from true randomness - not a PRNG or stream cipher which is sometimes advertised as OTP.
Note that there are attacks against OTP such as bit-flipping attacks, traffic analysis, mounting a camera pointing to the screen, rubber hose cryptanalysis etc. An OTP is only provably secure if the adversary only has the ciphertext but nothing else.
Quantum computing can theoretically be used to break stuff like RSA by implementing Shor's algorithm. It would require much more powerful quantum computers than we have today though. I doubt that we'll see powerful enough quantum computers this century if at all.
It is of course theoretically possible to factor large numbers with conventional computers, it'd just take a long, long, long, long time or you'd have to be extremely lucky.
I haven't kept up to date with this field lately, but I believe it's still not known whether it will be possible for a quantum computer to break symmetrical ciphers. It's theoretically possible to break them (with or without quantum computers) as long as the encrypted message is longer than the unicity distance; an often misunderstood concept that's defined in Claude E. Shannon's A Mathematical Theory of Communication from 1948.
Quantum encryption - which is really quantum key exchange - can be used to exchange an OTP. This would create an unbreakable cipher if you define "unbreakable" to mean "cannot be deciphered." It may still be possible to mount bit-flipping attacks etc. Quantum encryption is not very practical today though, and it's only useful in very few situations. It's interesting research which perhaps may someday result in more practical applications.