I disagree, it helps and it doesn' hurt...it might contribute 0 worst case but certainly it doesn't hurt technical interests
and who said they have any moral obligations, I didn't..they can do whatever they please.
-
-
Just making an argument that they never CLOSED any OSS code. Disingenuous to imply they did. Blog post makes this point.
-
I never said that they closed OSS code, no one is saying that. The post says other things which I quoted and consider inaccurate.
-
Sorry, I must have misinterpreted "their initial OSS use is being reversed". I see now you meant POLICY not code.
-
indeed, but their OSS code is such probably only because of having to honor licenses, they can't "close" it anyway (legally)...
-
Most, if not all, code from
@Yubico is OSS except for the yubikey firmware. I'd say that is a pretty OSS-friendly policy. -
I fully agree, which is probably the very reason about why some people are disappointed by that important exception.
-
In fact it might put both users and
@Yubico at risk. I'd much rather see a transparent assurance initiative around firmware. -
If you are saying that putting software as OSS might put users at risk then I truly disagree with that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.