If the military makes changes to OOo and the binaries of those changes stay in-house, then they are not violating the GPL if the code stays in-house as well. The violation would only occur if they distributed the binaries, which in your scenario of a raised security classification wouldn't happen. They would not distribute the binaries or the source. So, all is still well as far as I can tell.
On Thursday 10 October 2002 12:18 pm, Alastair Scott wrote: > On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:08:06 +0000 Miark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > shane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> saith: > > > ...the last asset, money, is startiong to get tied up between courts, > > > payed off poloticians, dropping economy, and great ventures like the > > > xbox... > > > > Excellent commentary on M$, Shane. About the _only_ thing you left out > > was this beautiful dash of salt: the latest cancer OS by Mandrake has > > spread to said xbox ;-) > > Well ... I work on a military project which is specifying a combination of > off-the-shelf and bespoke software. > > I was handed a paper today which studied in great detail (50 pages) the > security of Microsoft Office. It was damning and stated it _could never_ be > secured and that an alternative was _mandatory_ if anything other than > unclassified information were to be on the same PC. > > The suggested alternative was OOo and the clincher was the availability of > the source code; if insecure it could be secured. (This adds an interesting > wrinkle to the GPL; if these security fixes increase the security > classification of the software the updated source code cannot be > redistributed!) > > So the fortress has already fallen but nobody can hear it fall ;) > > Alastair
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
