Survival Time for Unpatched Systems Cut by Half

[Brian Kelsay]

Brian Kelsay

>>> djgoku <djgoku at gmail.com> 08/20/04 09:19AM >>>
>> Are you suggesting that the GPL, BSD, Mozilla, Artistic, and other open
>> source licenses be altered in some way that requires this?  Most of them
>> don't make any distinction between "home" and "business" use.

>If there is no distinction then it can be used for commercial or home,
>as long as the license is respect for the program.  correct?

>-- 
>dj_goku

Correct.  
He was just postulating that software for the home should be free no matter what.  It is very 
difficult, however to make this distinction.  I do occasional consulting work at home.  Many people 
start up businesses from their home.  So do they pay for the licenses as soon as they start a 
business?  Or do they get to keep their software as is?  There is some shareware and commercial 
ware that is free for home-use or non-profit use, but businesses must pay.   They rely on the 
honesty of the user to pay the license.  If you create software, you can use whatever license you 
want, that's up to the developer and/or the company they work for.  Sometimes I need a piece of 
software to solve a problem very quickly.  Do I choose to use commercial software that the company 
or I must pay for, to use once for ten minutes, or do I look for an GPL or similar license solution 
to avoid going thru the purchasing dept.?  I think you know the answer.  Going thru purchasing for 
a $10 or $30 program is a pain in the ass.  Getting people to sign purchase orders and the other 
annoying paperwork is a PITA.  But if I pay for something I am committed to using it for at least a 
year, even if I later decide that it sucks.

Some software is developed while working under a grant from the government, e.g. in universities, 
or government funded projects.  Don't you and I as citizens already own that software?  I think we 
could consider it already bought and paid for.  I expect that software to be made open source 
unless it poses a nat'l security risk.  I also think that same software should be used everywhere 
it is suited to, to take full advantage of the dollars spent on development.   Now the company that 
programmed for the government is not required to support any users that decide to adopt this 
software after it is made open unless this is covered by their development contract.  They only 
should have to provide access to source.  They really only have to provide source to the government 
and the government could handle redistribution.

But this is just me talking here.  I try to make sense.