Most of the attention has been going to Microsoft and its Internet Explorer web browser for having a severe zero-day security hole fixed, but Microsoft wasn't the only one hastily fixing its browser. Both Mozilla as well as Opera had to issue quick patches to fix several security flaws in their browsers.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2008-12-18
It seems that 2.0.0.19 will not be the last release for Firefox 2. Something went wrong and there will be a 2.0.0.20 (what a terrible naming scheme!) released around mid December.
Mozilla has been scheduling the 3.0.5 update for at least 40 days. They certainly didn't rush anything!
Edited 2008-12-18 11:21 UTC
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:2007-12-04
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:2006-01-04
Member since:
2006-02-06
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2006-02-06
Member since:2005-06-29
RE[4]: 'chances are'
Member since:2006-01-07
Member since:2005-07-13
maybe Dillo
Member since:2007-03-14
Member since:
2005-11-10
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:2007-09-06
The General Public License is an end user license so treating it like any other EULA is not too strange. The difference is that the GPL lists a bunch of things that users and developers may do provided they remain within the broad boundaries of the license where the traditional consumer EULA is a long legal document detailing what one is not allowed to do.
Permissive versus oppressive.
An example is comparing Mandriva's EULA to Mirosoft's:
Mandriva:
- you can do this
- you can do this
- you can do this
- thank you for trying our distribution
Microsoft:
- you can't do this
- you can't do this
- you can't do this
- we can do this without warning
- we can do this without warning
- we can do this without warning
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2007-09-08
I've never understood the tendency for Windows versions of GPL-licensed apps to use the GPL as an EULA either. OpenOffice does (or at least, did - I've not tried 3.0 on Windows yet) the same thing, except it forces you to scroll through the entire license before you can continue.
As far as I see it, the GPL is a distribution license, not a usage license. In fact, the GPL itself says this:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
Surely then, the GPL only applies if you're redistributing GPL-licensed software, whether modified or not. If I'm using a binary package, why should I have to agree to any of the provisions of the GPL? It doesn't apply to me. I'm not required to do that on any Linux system, for example.
If you stuck the GPL as a EULA on a package that installed source code, or development libraries, then I'd understand it.
Member since:2005-06-30
Member since:2007-09-06
Member since:2007-09-06
GPL does not state that it can only be displayed in the source header. It states that the source code must be made available for download. The pogram licensed under the GPL may be, and usually is, distributed as a compiled and installable binary.
.deb, .rpm, .zip/.exe (for the windows folks), .squish (not sure the Apple package type).. those are all packaged binaries.
Now, if you prefer to only download uncompiled GPL'd software then by all means.. go get yourself the tarballs and compile it all up as you like. I'm personally happy to use the precompiled binaries and resort to tarballed source code only when required (and rarely is it required).
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2005-12-02
Member since:2007-09-06
I'm guessing that by installing it through your linux repository, the idea that you realize you are using GPL software is assumed. I'm guessing on that one though.
Actually, I don't know of any of the various packages that presents the GPL. The only *nix installs I've seen that do so are binaries packages in tarballs such as the VMware Server install. Unzip the tar.gz, agree to the license, follow the install wizard; no real difference from a win32 installer except for the lack of useless GUI makeup (it is server software after all).
On the other hand, why is it such an issue that the win32 install of VLC does show the license? My personal guess that way would be because showing the license accounts for it being installed on a machine that may not include other software based on the same license.
In either case, you'd have to ask the VLC developers why they chose to present the license during the win32 install. Unless there are members of the VLC project reading the forum, you'll get nothing more accurate than guesses.
Member since:2005-07-06
No it isn't. Refer to the GPL itself & the FSF for more information.
In answer to the original question, it's because the Microsoft installer tools such as Installshield generally require an EULA to be displayed, and it's easier to display something even if it's not quite correct, rather than trying to change the dialog configuration in Installshield to remove the unnecessary EULA dialog.
Member since:2007-09-06
I see the technical limitation in the windows installer requiring some sort of document to display.
In terms of not being an end user agreement.. does the end user not have to abide by the freedom to redistribute binary or source for programs they use? An end user license does not only have to be a long legal and restrictive document does it?
Member since:2005-12-02
Member since:2007-09-06
Member since:2007-02-22
Member since:2005-06-29
The Firefox flaws also allow for code execution, it literally says so on the Mozilla advisories. The fact that it's not being exploited is something completely different, and entirely unrelated to whether or not the vulnerability is as severe as another.
You know there's something wrong with you when you apply more spin than the organisation/product you're defending.
But heck, I use Chrome, and I run as a limited user, so for now I'm "safe" anyway.
