Microsoft Now OpenBSD Foundation Gold Contributor

[Mehmet Erol Sanliturk]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Polytropon <freebsd at edvax.de> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:30:27 -0600, jd1008 wrote:
> > A friend of mine commented about this to me:
> >
> > "[...]
> > I've always wondered whether consumer hardware / embedded devices would
> > start migrating over to BSD, since GPL compliance is such a hassle for
> > many vendors.  Obviously Android went this way several years ago."
>
> Due to the licensing terms of the BSDL, we will never really
> find out how many embedded devices (routers, home alarm systems,
> crypto applicances, entertainment solutions and so on) already
> contain a BSD operating system at their heart. The vendor is
> not forced to tell anyone that they're using a BSD, and they
> do not make their source code public. It can therefore contain
> backdoors, spyware, and other means of invading user privacy.
> Unlike the GPL which somewhat requires "contributing back",
> the BSDL does not do so. So it's a perfectly viable basis for
> building a closed-source product that caters the government,
> the security organisations and the "market" more than its
> buyers and users.
>
>
> --
> Polytropon
> Magdeburg, Germany
> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
> _______________________________________________
>
>

Is there a "Natural Law" that enforces to supply "equivalent" "source
code"  and "machine code" for copy - left licensed software ?

Who can "prove" that the supplied "source code" is "different" from the
supplied "machine code" ?

This is an "Undecidable" problem which is  "Turing's Halting Problem" :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

in a form to try to prove that two "programs" are equivalent or not ( they
pass the same execution points or not ) .


This means that , claiming that "copy-left licensed software is more secure
than permissive licensed software" is a groundless and incorrect claim .


Thank you very much .


Mehmet Erol Sanliturk