I'm not sure that "infected" is a good way to describe freeRADIUS code ;-) Its not my project, but I think it would be nice to give them a little more than a day to respond...
-----Original Message----- From: freeradius-devel-bounces@lists.freeradius.org [mailto:freeradius-devel-bounces@lists.freeradius.org] Sent: Tuesday, 7 June 2005 12:37 PM To: freeradius-devel Subject: TinyPEAP
I was going to post the following on the linksys tinypeap forum. Comments? And/or we could submit a slashdot story.
==== Please don't use TinyPEAP. The authors have stolen code from the FreeRADIUS project (not the legal definition of "steal" since code isn't physical property, but theft all the same).
TinyPEAP uses TLS (and possibly other) code from FreeRADIUS. FreeRADIUS is licensed under the GPL. That means if you take FreeRADIUS code and redistribute it, you must also distribute your modifications to the code. Or if you incorporate FreeRADIUS code into your own, you've "infected" your own code and must distribute the source.
Many FreeRADIUS developers have worked hard to create the EAP functionality. Please don't step on their rights by using TinyPEAP.
The TinyPEAP developers were contacted but did not respond. Next will be legal action.
Frank Cusack FreeRADIUS developer ==== - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
Mitchell, Michael J wrote:
Its not my project, but I think it would be nice to give them a little more than a day to respond...
I would tend to agree. It's not good that they're using the code in a closed source manner, however it's *is* good etiquette to give them a couple of days to respond before taking further action. In addition, I'm not sure that posting that email to the TinyPEAP list or posting a news item on a public forum is constructive. At least not yet. They need to at least have a chance to defend themselves and work the issue out before we go blasting them in a public manner. --Mike
Michael Griego <mgriego@utdallas.edu> wrote:
I would tend to agree. It's not good that they're using the code in a closed source manner, however it's *is* good etiquette to give them a couple of days to respond before taking further action.
They've had 48 hours now.
In addition, I'm not sure that posting that email to the TinyPEAP list or posting a news item on a public forum is constructive. At least not yet. They need to at least have a chance to defend themselves and work the issue out before we go blasting them in a public manner.
Keeping people informed is constructive. I contacted them 48 hours ago, and their provider 24 hours ago. I have yet to receive a response. Let's go public. Alan DeKok.
On June 7, 2005 2:33:07 PM -0400 Alan DeKok <aland@ox.org> wrote:
Keeping people informed is constructive. I contacted them 48 hours ago, and their provider 24 hours ago. I have yet to receive a response.
Let's go public.
Been away on a short trip, sorry for the delay. Let me call Georgia Tech tomorrow and see if I can get anywhere. Frank
Frank Cusack <fcusack@fcusack.com> wrote:
Been away on a short trip, sorry for the delay. Let me call Georgia Tech tomorrow and see if I can get anywhere.
I've posted the message to the linksys users forum, and sent a PGP-signed message to the address from "whois", CC'ing Georgia tech's legal department. But feel free to call them. If necessary, conference me in. Alan DeKok.
"Mitchell, Michael J" <Michael.Mitchell@team.telstra.com> wrote:
Its not my project, but I think it would be nice to give them a little more than a day to respond...
Waiting a day to be "nice" is missing the point entirely. Theft is wrong. It's not "nice" to deal with it, but it's the right thing to do. I contacted him Sunday morning. No response. I filed a report with his prodivider yesterday. No response. Let's go to slashdot, and maybe later today I'll fax them a DMCA take-down notice. I'll see if I can find a friendly lawyer to add his $0.02 to it, too. Alan DeKok.
participants (4)
-
Alan DeKok -
Frank Cusack -
Michael Griego -
Mitchell, Michael J