As recently reported on OpenBSD's errata page, a problem in the mbuf handling of IPv6 has been elevated to a security issue. This means that OpenBSD now has two remote exploits in 10 years, as already reflected on the OpenBSD Homepage. Theo advises to to update the system (or to block IPv6 using PF as a workaround).
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Now... this is serious!
Member since:2005-08-18
"YOU ARE WRONG , some of those you listed are GPL , most of them are NOT BSD."
So? I never said they're BSD, I said they're not GPL and that's true in every one of the cases (and more) except for the tri-licensed Moz/FF/TB. and dual-licensed Perl (which still supports my point, they're not GPL only).
Edited 2007-03-15 08:07
Member since:2005-07-06
"I never said they're BSD"
It was implied , sorry.
"I said they're not GPL and that's true in every one of the cases"
that's where you are wrong and have been proved false by me.
"which still proves my point"
No , it prove that some software who are in high usage do not use the GPL or are GPL and licensed with something else , The point you where refuting is that the majority is not GPL , you failed to achieve it by offering false information and being wrong.
" they're not GPL only)."
Your false point was , they are not GPL. You just added only now. You still fail to prove majority to other license or something else then GPL.
Member since:2007-03-14
Apache is neither BSD or GPL..
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 - Although it's compatible with the GPL..
BIND does use a modified BSD-like licence!!
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
Perl is GPL, but is also under an Artistic License...
Python is under a BSD-like licence!!
(1) GPL-compatible doesn't mean that we're distributing Python under the GPL. All Python licenses, unlike the GPL, let you distribute a modified version without making your changes open source. The GPL-compatible licenses make it possible to combine Python with other software that is released under the GPL; the others don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_Software_Foundation_License
X.Org's licence is a MIT ("X") License, Which again.. Is a Modified BSD Licence!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
XFree86 is under a BSD-like licence also.. With various incompatibilities in specific versions.
And PHP.. The licence is almost absolutely a Modified BSD licence..
http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt
Each have various clauses you have to agree with, But there not too extreme.
(PHP's for example looks generic.. You could make a proprietary version called TIN-PEE-H-PEE This is not PHP.. if you wanted!!)
Truly Mozilla/Apache/Perl are the only ones on there that have licences that are not modified BSD licences..
Maybe your just uneducated, But if you didn't know this already.. The BSD licence TEXT is public domain, You're free to modify it accordingly for use in your code/project..
(Not the licence on someone else's project/code though..).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licence
So stop trolling Moulinneuf!!
Edited 2007-03-15 08:54
Member since:
2005-08-18
"You know why most OSS developers prefer the GPL and _not_ the BSD license?"
What's your definition of "most"?
None of the below projects are GPL:
Apache
Sendmail
BIND
Perl
Python
OpenSSH
X.org
XFree86
PHP
Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird