Akamai release source to their custom secure_malloc for OpenSSL

Re:Akamai release source to their custom secure_malloc for O... by judk on Sunday April 13, 2014 @09:23AM (#7581229)

It is not true that AGPL is incompatible with responsible disclosure. Responsible disclosure timelines mean that the source code would be published long before anyone had time to complain about the source not being available.

Enforcement is hard, but AGPL is strictly stronger than GPL which doesn't evenninvitr enforcement on sharing server code.

Yes, many companies avoid AGPL software. That isn't a problem for AGPL-leaning authors, that's the point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Akamai release source to their custom secure_malloc for O... by eli on Sunday April 13, 2014 @10:45AM (#7581442)

Even if (probably) no one has time to complain about it, you'd still technically be violating the license by withholding code, right?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Akamai release source to their custom secure_malloc for O... by comex on Sunday April 13, 2014 @08:52PM (#7583932)

Probably. AGPL says you need to "provid[e] access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software", and GPLv3 also seems to require digital distribution of software to include immediate source access. GPLv2's source requirement, on the other hand, can be satisfied by a "written offer" to provide the source no matter how the binary is distributed; I think this is (along with apathy) how Apple gets away with taking months to publish GPLv2 sources.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Akamai release source to their custom secure_malloc for O... by muyuu on Sunday April 13, 2014 @02:40PM (#7582359)

That exposes whoever does this to uncharted legal territory.

There are many reasons why AGPL is used in extremely few projects of any relevance, compared to other GPL licences, or BSD, MIT, etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]