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.
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:2005-08-18
"Your false point was , they are not GPL. You just added only now."
Really now, shall we see what I actually did say:
"None of the below projects are GPL:"
And that is true, they aren't. They are either not GPL or multi-licensed where *one* license is GPL and thus you arent coding for a GPL project since your code can (and will) be licensed under some non-GPL license.
I don't mind the GPL but with so many cornerstone projects NOT being GPL saying that "most OSS developers prefer GPL" is a far stretch. No doubt many do but many != most.
RE[9]: Now... this is serious!
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:2005-07-06
" Apache is neither BSD or GPL"
Thats what I said ... I did not imply it was GPL that your own twisting of relaity.
"BIND does use a modified BSD-like licence!! "
That's what I said.
"Perl is GPL, but is also under an Artistic License..."
That's what I said.
"Python is under a BSD-like licence!! "
No , its under the Python Software Foundation License like I said.
"X.Org's licence is a MIT ("X") License, Which again.. Is a Modified BSD Licence!! "
No , its the MIT license ...
"XFree86 is under a BSD-like licence also.."
No , its under XFree86 is XFree86 1.1 copyright/license
"And PHP.. The licence is almost absolutely a Modified BSD licence"
No its , PHP license
"Maybe your just uneducated"
No , I am educated , and right , I just don't rewrite reality and everything as GPL to fit my points and facts as you do with everything BSD. " BSDfan "
I never introduced a comparison with the GPL or suggested that license that are not GPL are GPL , but you did rewrite me as suggesting I did so, I was right and factual , you on the other end as long as it look like BSD it must be based of BSD ...
I never troll *BSDfan*.
Member since:
2005-07-06
All the application you are wrong about in your listing , all the other not included who are GPL make most.
- Apache is not BSD.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/
- Sendmail is BSD based :
SENDMAIL LICENSE
- BIND is BSD licensed.
- Perl is GPL ( its dual licensed ) NOT BSD
http://dev.perl.org/licenses/
- Python is not BSD :
Python Software Foundation License
http://www.python.org/psf/license/
- OpenSSH is BSD
- X11 is not BSD
License: X11 License
- XFree86 is not BSD
XFree86 is XFree86 1.1 copyright/license
http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE1.html
- PHP is not BSD
PHP license
http://www.php.net/license/
Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird is not BSD and is GPL.
MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license
http://www.answers.com/topic/firefox
-----
YOU ARE WRONG , some of those you listed are GPL , most of them are NOT BSD.
Edited 2007-03-15 07:50