Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > LGPL achieves it too. The only extra thing GPL says is that > "if you reuse my code, I'm not satisfied that you keep MY > code free. The code YOU write by yourself must also have MY > license."
Well, that depends on the case. I'm generally happy with the LGPL too. > Secrecy fulfills no rational purpose at all here. You cannot fix > your hole without making its existense public, and - contrary > to software security - there is *no way* to retroactively fix the > compromised implementations already employed. Hrm, there is some merit to what you say here.
