[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <506CD06B.2070806@mccme.ru>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 03:55:23 +0400
From: Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@...me.ru>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: GPL license is not free at all
On 2012-10-02 03:37, Rich Rumble wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Milen Rangelov <gat3way@...il.com> wrote:
>> I still think the better solution is "GPL+unrar exception". I really
>> wouldn't believe someone would grab a password cracker and turn it into an
>> archiver. It could basically do it with either unrar code or say the clamav
>> port. That's just insane.
> That part bugs me too, the license is only telling you something you
> SHOULD know already, not to reverse(engineer?) the
> patented/copyrighted Rar archiver by using the "free" unrar code, and
> then distributing that work.
Sorry, I'm somewhat lost. Why should someone know such a strange thing?
Reversing is all around us -- Samba for MS protocols, OpenOffice for MS
formats, The Unarchiver for unrar etc. Or to get closer to john -- many
hash formats were not documented and were reversed by interested people.
You are in security and still think that reversing is wrong? Or that
distributing results of reversing is wrong? Or using freely available
unrar for reversing is wrong?
> I'm sure RMS and the FSF would not agree,
> it's one extreme or the other, just cause it says you can't reverse
> the proprietary algo means it's not free... extreme.
Sure, it's not free.
--
Alexander Cherepanov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
