This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2008/04/14/mcafee-attacks-straw-men/.
Posted in FUD, GNU/Linux, GPL, Microsoft, Security, Windows at 10:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Rebels against secure technology, GPL
Still financially-reliant on Windows and its many vulnerabilities, McAfee appears to be continuing its crusade against change. Never mind if the departure of a senior vice president from Microsoft (Windows executive) was only leaked yesterday, indicating that Windows’ decline is inevitable. Never mind if any cyber-criminal that uses GNU/Linux could just as effectively use Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows. Never mind if development of scripts needn’t rely on sharing.
“Never mind if any cyber-criminal that uses GNU/Linux could just as effectively use Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows.”There might just be something at McAfee that has led them to taking the lead in anti-Free software battles [1, 2] for at least a couple of years, not only because they are quite likely GPL violators. Trend Micro is a close second because a couple of years ago it actually defended and praised the security advantage of Free software (before attacking it in court over software patents).
=> 1 | 2 | a close second | attacking it in court over software patents
Sadly enough, more recently we saw Palamida flirting with (even collaborating with) McAfee. One has to worry about fear as a product or sales strategy. Anyway, for details about McAfee’s latest accusation, see Matt Asay’s blog.
=> Palamida flirting with (even collaborating with) McAfee | fear as a product or sales strategy | ↺ Matt Asay’s blog
Someone at McAfee thinks that the correlation between botnets and open source is clear, but I am struggling to grasp any connection between the two. Perhaps this is just one more example of McAfee’s dubious grasp on reality when it comes to open source. Remember its statement that open-source licensing is a threat to its business?
Also from the same blog, recall Google's AGPL antipathy, which was discussed here only a few days ago. Google seems to have replied, but in a very tactless fashion. Asay rebuts.
=> Google's AGPL antipathy | ↺ rebuts
Well, no, Chris [DiBona], AGPL is not “meaning something else altogether.” It actually means precisely what the GPL was always intended to mean: Reciprocity. It is likely true that Google doesn’t like that reciprocity requirement, but that’s “something else altogether.”
What is the AGPL? It’s the Affero General Public License, and finishes the job that GPLv3 was supposed to do: Broaden the definition of “distribution” enough to keep Web freeriders like Google, Digg, etc. from using open-source code without contributing back.
Google will hopefully have this one rectified, for its own good. █
GPL author: Google must share codeFunambol Helps New AGPLv3 Open Source License Gain Formal OSI ApprovalCensus started for enterprise open source useFunambol Is First Major Commercial OpenSource Company To Support AGPLv3Google pays for Affero banGoogle blocking AGPL in Google Code
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).