On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:11:12AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > I won't overgeneralize; some free licenses do place restrictions on > > security- > > related decisions (the GPL prevents me from adding some security-related > > features and not releasing the source for the above reason), > > No, it doesn't. It merely requires that those who have copies of > software with the features have the source. So, for example, I could > write a hardened web server based on some GPL'd web server and then > give copies only to people I trust; as long as I make my trust > decisions wisely, only good guys will ever get copies.
Which means I can't give my security enhancements to anyone I don't trust; whereas I might be willing to give people binaries to get a minor obscurity benefit for everyone, I won't be able to give it to anyone. I'm not saying this case is a bad thing, that this is a failing of the GPL, or anything like that. It's just the type of thing that makes me not jump all the way to "licenses shouldn't make any restrictions on my security decisions". The case under discussion is somewhat different, of course, since it's a use restriction. -- Glenn Maynard