Canonical has lawyers, but as this would not be a Canonical issue as they would
sync from Debian, I raised the question here first.
It seems that overall consensus is I should let this sit and see what happens
in the future with regards to whether F5 brings litigation or such against
freenginx
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 14:59:48 -0600
Richard Laager wrote:
> On 2024-02-26 11:49, Thomas Ward wrote:
> [...]
>
> So, in effect, Maxim seems to have wanted F5 to either NOT publish a
> security vulnerability for their commercial product, knowing their
> customers/users had this code in
First off, I don't know anyone involved in this.
On 2024-02-26 11:49, Thomas Ward wrote:
Back on February 14^th , an email went to the standard NGINX mailing
list that NGINX (F5) open source development changed a lot of policies
and interfered with security policy use cases
I don't know
Good day, debian-legal!
Back on February 14th, an email went to the standard NGINX mailing list that
NGINX (F5) open source development changed a lot of policies and interfered
with security policy use cases enough to irritate one of the main community
developers of NGINX. At that time, a
4 matches
Mail list logo
