[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140828065641.10074f2d@pc>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:56:41 +0200
From: Hanno Böck <hanno@...eck.de>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Open Source only?
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:52:30 -0600
Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com> wrote:
> Simple: If we go with Open Source only then "is the code available
> under an approved license"?
>
> http://opensource.org/licenses
Being part on the Gentoo licensing team for a while I can tell you that
there exists no list of approved licenses that is nearby complete
(neither FSFs nor OSIs is anywhere near).
There's a very large number of licenses out there that comply with
every definition of Free Software or Open Source Software that you'll
find in no list whatsoever, mostly slight variations of the various
BSD-alike licenses that are only used for a single piece of software.
As for the original matter, I agree that we should go with open source
licenses only, however given I know that it can sometimes be hard to
decide, I think nobody should blame the list moderators if they decide
in doubt to let messages through if they have unclear licensing
situation. Because doing the research if something should be considered
foss can sometimes be painful and a lot of work.
--
Hanno Böck
http://hboeck.de/
mail/jabber: hanno@...eck.de
GPG: BBB51E42
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
