oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: Open Source only?
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried () redhat com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:52:30 -0600
On 27/08/14 05:04 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
Hi, I've just rejected a posting giving the following reason: Message lacks Subject, and the software appears to be non Open Source: partial(?) source code is available, but under a EULA that doesn't appear to meet OSI definition. The message was CC'ed to full-disclosure, so it will probably appear there. While message lacking Subject is a technicality, which the sender may address (and resend the message), the issue of software that comes with source code, but isn't under an Open Source license is one we might want to decide on, if we haven't already (I think we have, which is why I mentioned it as one of two reasons to reject that posting). Also, it may at times be tricky (and unreliable and time-consuming) for list moderators to determine whether a license is Open Source or not, as well as whether the software is possibly dual-licensed. Should we perhaps err on the side of approving postings whenever in doubt?
Simple: If we go with Open Source only then "is the code available under an approved license"? http://opensource.org/licenses Obviously if there needs to be an exception (e.g. a closed source/poorly licensed source interacts significantly with something Open Source it might be worth discussing). The other aspect of this: in my experience the majority of closed source vendors just don't care about security. So discussing it, especially without their input/even being aware of it is quite pointless.
Alexander
-- Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Current thread:
- Open Source only? Solar Designer (Aug 27)
- Re: Open Source only? Kurt Seifried (Aug 27)
- Re: Open Source only? Hanno Böck (Aug 27)
- Re: Open Source only? Joe MacDonald (Sep 03)
- Re: Open Source only? Tim (Aug 27)
- Re: Open Source only? Tomas Hoger (Sep 03)
- Re: Open Source only? Kurt Seifried (Aug 27)