Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] GPL FUDster Can Get Sued for Violation, Stock Drops

  • Subject: Re: [News] GPL FUDster Can Get Sued for Violation, Stock Drops
  • From: "[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:27:42 +0000
  • Bytes: 3488
  • In-reply-to: <1220370.rI3qUBPx30@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Openpgp: id=BF436EC9; url=http://slated.org/files/GPG-KEY-SLATED.asc
  • Organization: Slated.org
  • References: <1220370.rI3qUBPx30@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071114 Remi/2.0.0.9-1.fc6.remi Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666
  • Xref: ellandroad.demon.co.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:591858
Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:

> Is McAfee just asking for a lawsuit?

McAfee are wrong on so many levels it's dazzling!!!

First, they are basically saying that although they expect others to
honour their copyrights, they don't care about others. Proprietary
copyrights should be respected, but FOSS copyrights should not?

Secondly, they seem to have drank some of Sweaty's kool-aid, and now
they're pissing FUD like "Linux is a cancer", with their "our code may
be compromised by the GPL" bullshit. Are they so stupid that they don't
understand that separate components may legitimately have separate licenses?

Thirdly, they were quite happy to use others' GPL work to make nice fat
profits for the company, but now they baulk at merely complying with the
Corresponding Source requirements?

Fourth, they're stuck in the dark ages, with their retarded "security
through obscurity" philosophy ... like that's been such a great asset to
the master of such practises - Microsoft, the poster child for insecure
software. This is almost as bad as that Ashley Highfield numbskull, and
his "you can't do an Open Source DRM" crap. Yeah, that's right ... the
existence of the source code for encryption software and antivirus
software *obviously* compromises that software ... right?

Idiots.

Why are such people apparently incapable of grasping the simple concept
that access to the source does *not* compromise the integrity of the
software? It hasn't with GNU/Linux or BSD ... quite the opposite in
fact, it's made it *more* secure ... so why do these dimwits think
*their* software should be any different?

Gotta "protect" that "IP" pot of gold though, whatever else happens.

Gah! Such people should not be allowed to infect the human gene pool.

Open the gates to the dinosaurs' graveyard, we have another customer.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
|  make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
|  - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
 13:25:53 up 19 days, 11:01,  5 users,  load average: 0.04, 0.16, 0.15

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index