The FBI Paid OpenBSD Developers For Backdoors?

[BlackStar]

@ModplanMan & yogi_berra, I give up. Just head to gnu.org, it explains everything: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....eGPLAllowMoney

The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, not “free beer”.)

Yes, Red Hat sells free software. They've built a thriving business around this.

[BlackStar]

And in case that's not clear enough, the words of the CEO of Red Hat, himself:

Red Hat makes money, I often say, specifically by selling free software.

He then goes on to explain what the real value of free software is. Check out the article, it is an interesting read.

[movieman]

Red Hat sells free software. They've built a thriving business around this.

Much as I hate to disagree with their CEO, what Red Hat really sell is support for that software. You can get most of it from CentOS, but if you don't want to risk having to wait for a security fix to make it from Red Hat to CentOS then you pay Red Hat for support instead.

I've seriously considered paying the $80 a year or whatever it is Red Hat charge now to replace CentOS on my telecommuting PC just because of the occasional long delays in getting security fixes; most of them are out within a day or two, but sometimes it's taken weeks.

[yogi_berra]

Much as I hate to disagree with their CEO, what Red Hat really sell is support for that software. You can get most of it from CentOS, but if you don't want to risk having to wait for a security fix to make it from Red Hat to CentOS then you pay Red Hat for support instead.

I've seriously considered paying the $80 a year or whatever it is Red Hat charge now to replace CentOS on my telecommuting PC just because of the occasional long delays in getting security fixes; most of them are out within a day or two, but sometimes it's taken weeks.

Red Hat tells you to shut your machine off when your subscription runs out. The "evil" Oracle doesn't even do that.

Oh @ BlackStar if you think I have a problem with a company making money from selling software, you are an idiot, I have a problem with the business model of extorting money from security updates.

[Mr James]

Red Hat tells you to shut your machine off when your subscription runs out. The "evil" Oracle doesn't even do that.

Oh @ BlackStar if you think I have a problem with a company making money from selling software, you are an idiot, I have a problem with the business model of extorting money from security updates.

No. They give you an open source VirtualBox with missing features.

[crazycheese]

Yes, Red Hat sells free software. They've built a thriving business around this.

Man, whats the problem with you?
Software as in information, (1)dies if it is NOT used(google for very old unpopular thing); (2) multiplies if it is USED.
Human work, hardware as in product, (1) dies if it is USED; (2) stays in one piece if it is NOT used.

Infomation and its carrier - matter are of two different natures.

Red Hat is selling what it uses - human work, sandwiches and luxury houses for talented people. But the result is free to have once it is ready. Just creating this result costs money, not the result in the end.

They have build a brilliant model around creating worlds, not around cloning and replackaging.

[crazycheese]

Red Hat tells you to shut your machine off when your subscription runs out. The "evil" Oracle doesn't even do that.

Oh @ BlackStar if you think I have a problem with a company making money from selling software, you are an idiot, I have a problem with the business model of extorting money from security updates.

Somebody has to write those fixes, not?
And this requires costs. From food and electricity to money for hacker's children education.
It is human work to find, debug, waste time.
The ready result, however, is free to have and they submit it upstream.
Just somebody has to do it.

Either professionally and seriously like RedHat, in free time(Slack, Gentoo, Arch, Debian) or redneck barber-debugger way - throwing unstable software on common Joe the barber (Ubuntu).

And first thing is best and most direct, when you have money of course.

[yotambien]

$100 for such an important and difficult work? What a preposterous offer!
This guy is a cheap blogger looking for publicity.
He also is a naive citizen who refuses to believe that states are not good-intentioned mothers.
Unconsciously he must know the truth since he will not offer his house as a bounty.
He is too weak to consciously face reality.

You are right, $100x3 ($200x3 including the offer from the pfsense team) is not serious money to audit that code. However, given how quickly some people are assuming the supposed backdoors to be real, I imagine some hundred bucks will be a good incentive for them to reveal their own sources and audits, based on which they arrived at their informed conclusions. After all, so far they're doing it for free.

[BlackStar]

@crazycheese: in other words, Red Hat develops and sells free software. Why is it so difficult for you to accept this?

Did you even read the FSF links? Or Jim Whitehurst's interview?

Do you understand the distinction between free-as-in-speech and free-as-in-beer? It's fundamental: Red Hat sells RHEL. This is free-as-in-speech software (source-code available) but is is *not* free-as-in-beer: you need to pay Red Hat in order to use it.

If you don't wish to pay, you can get the source-code and do whatever you want with it - but then you are not using RHEL, you are using something else entirely.

But please go on bubbling about how you cannot sell free software (even though the FSF explicitly says you can) or how Red Hat doesn't sell free software (even though the Red Hat CEO says they do). Be my guest.

[deanjo]

There is also the situation where XYZ pays to add ZYX function to be added to the software.