Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU study recommends OpenBSD

undeadly.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 153 posts

Re: EU study recommends OpenBSD

#61

Post by bnegreve »

chupy wrote: post #32
th0br0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I primarily know about the projects listed at https://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/809f10db25eddf3e/projects A personal observation is that, nowadays, gitlab seems to be preferred to github as part of a push to rely more on software developed inside the EU (guess it's an aftermath of the whole NSA story). PolicyCompass, for example, lives at https://github.com/policycompass Carneades lives at http://github.com/carneades M…

Just curious, is that software developed by consultants or by actual EU employees?

FP7 founds research projects, so we're mostly talking about research software which is usually developed by researchers.

Re: EU study recommends OpenBSD

#62

Post by psykovsky »

nitramafve wrote: post #46
cwyers wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPL requires you to distribute source code in addition to binaries. If you don't distribute binaries (i.e. if you're running the code on your server farm only), then you don't have to distribute anything.

That is why some choose to license their work under AGPL.

And that's why some stay away from AGPL licensed projects.

Re: EU study recommends OpenBSD

#63

Post by amyjess »

jdub wrote: post #39
jkyle wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think any even require that people distributing modified versions, send those modifications back upstream. Copy Left licenses require those changes be shared on request. Which is pretty close.

Copyleft licenses require changes be shared on distribution , and only to whom binaries have been distributed.

Technically speaking, a license only has to require that changes be licensed under the same terms as the original to be deemed "copyleft".

The requirement to release source is specifically a GPLism and not part of all copyleft licenses. It's not infeasible for a copyleft license to imply "sure, it's legal for someone to create and distribute derivative works based on top of your modifications, but only if they have the technical skill to reverse-engineer it".

Re: EU study recommends OpenBSD

#64

Post by OJFord »

th0br0 wrote: post #17
s_dev wrote: post #2

Theo De Raadt always complained that many of the institutions that run and use OpenBSD don't contribute back. Good to see the EU at least acknowledging that its something that they should explore. They probably use it and its features more than they realise. I suspect there is a strong political motive as well behind being "technologically independent" after the NSA mass surveillance revelations. I like the sound of…

In general, the EU is _very_ strong on open source commitments. Almost all projects that I know of and some of which I'm working on funded as part of FP7 (Seventh Framework Programme) will eventually end up open-sourced.

"the EU is _very_ strong on open source commits."

Had to re-read a couple times to get that right -_-

Re: EU study recommends OpenBSD

#65

Post by copx »

brudgers wrote: post #7

Link to Part 1 of the study (wherein the recommendation lies): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/52740... Part 2 of the study recommends government funding of Open Source Projects: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/52741... Potential and actual conflicts of interest between governments and citizens in regard to privacy are not addressed.

Also not addressed: potential and actual conflicts between governments and Theo De Raadt. Remember that OpenBSD used to be funded by DARPA.. used to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt#DARPA_funding_can...

Re: EU study recommends OpenBSD

#66

Post by istvan__ »

jkyle wrote: post #4
s_dev wrote: post #2

Theo De Raadt always complained that many of the institutions that run and use OpenBSD don't contribute back. Good to see the EU at least acknowledging that its something that they should explore. They probably use it and its features more than they realise. I suspect there is a strong political motive as well behind being "technologically independent" after the NSA mass surveillance revelations. I like the sound of…

> Theo De Raadt always complained that many of the institutions that run and use OpenBSD don't contribute back. Sounds like he needs a different license then.

Easy like that?

Re: EU study recommends OpenBSD

#67

Post by makeitsuckless »

dash2 wrote: post #58

For those that know more about OpenBSD than the EU (and I salute you for it), the EU parliament is a fairly powerless institution. Eurocrats show it little respect; one described it as "just one big fucking NGO". Update after reading it: this isn't even an official parliament document or recommendation. It's something by the parliament's research service.

On HN, "the EU" is a fictional European entity which can be anything people want it to be depending on the argument they're trying to make.

Excuse the snark, but the wilful ignorance concerning the EU and Europe in favour of ideological posturing makes it near impossible to discuss most relevant topics.

Starting with a somewhat misleading headline doesn't help.

Re: EU study recommends OpenBSD

#68

Post by istvan__ »

nitramafve wrote: post #46
cwyers wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPL requires you to distribute source code in addition to binaries. If you don't distribute binaries (i.e. if you're running the code on your server farm only), then you don't have to distribute anything.

That is why some choose to license their work under AGPL.

If you work for a bigger organization these licenses are banned for a good reason. There are some companies who are a little bit too relaxed with this ban (like VMWare) and you can see the results. I know for fact that some of the big guys take licensing very seriously and there are licenses that are approved for use while others are banned. The want to make sure there is no surprise down the road.

Re: EU study recommends OpenBSD

#69

Post by zanny »

joshuapants wrote: post #13
jkyle wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Theo De Raadt always complained that many of the institutions that run and use OpenBSD don't contribute back. Sounds like he needs a different license then.

I don't think that would make them likely to contribute back, they'd just use something else. He'd rather have selfish people using good software than choosing to use something inferior.

Somehow Google, Samsung, and Intel are sticking the Linux kernel in everything despite it being GPL'd and them having to release their modifications. Might have something to do with how reengineering the Linux kernel would cost on the order of billions of dollars in engineer time.

Re: EU study recommends OpenBSD

#70

Post by higherpurpose »

dash2 wrote: post #58

For those that know more about OpenBSD than the EU (and I salute you for it), the EU parliament is a fairly powerless institution. Eurocrats show it little respect; one described it as "just one big fucking NGO". Update after reading it: this isn't even an official parliament document or recommendation. It's something by the parliament's research service.

I don't know about that. It's the EU Parliament that comes up with most of the new EU-wide directives. It's the EU Parliament that defeated ACTA, while the EU Commission was trying its best to pass it. The Commission is generally much more prone to lobbying influence, and perhaps unsurprisingly it also tends to be less democratic as a consequence. The new Commission might not be as bad as the previous one, but it's still too early to decide.
Post reply on HN