4 ms·

You really feel that anything that is not directly on the home page does not matter? A link to a separate document explicitly named as containing the conditions

You really feel that anything that is not directly on the home page does not matter? A link to a separate document explicitly named as containing the conditions of license, warranty and such should not count? Seems like an absurd view to me. For all that I think RedHat is not a poor hobbyist and morally at fault. It's just a different matter altogether. The terms under which the software is provided are clearly spelled and in public view. You're just inventing a reason to disregard them.

ziddoap 2y ago
>You really feel that anything that is not directly on the home page does not matter? No, that's not what I said. When it comes to software like this (one of the most important components of your security architecture), hiding the fact that you wont fix vulnerabilities unless you feel like it halfway down in your legalese-filled license is unethical. I think it's absurd that people are defending this position. We're not talking about a weather app made by Joe Somebody for a weekend project.
- lucianbr 2y ago
  > Point 7 buried in the license document of the github repository is very much not https://www.keycloak.org/ https://www.keycloak.org/ Not a single word in this comment refers to "software like this (one of the most important components of your security architecture)". I guess you realized the absurdity of your position and moved the goalposts to something else.
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    What? Can you explain where you think I set goalposts, and how you think I moved them? Because I am not following.
- LaSombra 2y ago
  The Linux kernel, probably one of the most critically important pieces of software nowadays, is licenced mainly under the GPL version 2.0[0], and other compatible licenses, and provides a section and 2 paragraphs on how there is no warranty for those who decide to use it. """ NO WARRANTY 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. 12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. """ No Linux kernel engineer is obliged to fix any bugs, even security vulnerabilities, if one decides to, but since there's so much at stake, kernel engineers will end up fixing at their own timeframes, as they see fit. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    My complaint was not about the license, it was about how the product represents itself. Linux.org is a much different website than keycloak.org in the way they represent themselves, how they communicate the product, etc.

ziddoap 2y ago

>You really feel that anything that is not directly on the home page does not matter? No, that's not what I said. When it comes to software like this (one of the most important components of your security architecture), hiding the fact that you wont fix vulnerabilities unless you feel like it halfway down in your legalese-filled license is unethical. I think it's absurd that people are defending this position. We're not talking about a weather app made by Joe Somebody for a weekend project.

lucianbr 2y ago
> Point 7 buried in the license document of the github repository is very much not https://www.keycloak.org/ https://www.keycloak.org/ Not a single word in this comment refers to "software like this (one of the most important components of your security architecture)". I guess you realized the absurdity of your position and moved the goalposts to something else.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  What? Can you explain where you think I set goalposts, and how you think I moved them? Because I am not following.
LaSombra 2y ago
The Linux kernel, probably one of the most critically important pieces of software nowadays, is licenced mainly under the GPL version 2.0[0], and other compatible licenses, and provides a section and 2 paragraphs on how there is no warranty for those who decide to use it. """ NO WARRANTY 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. 12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. """ No Linux kernel engineer is obliged to fix any bugs, even security vulnerabilities, if one decides to, but since there's so much at stake, kernel engineers will end up fixing at their own timeframes, as they see fit. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
- ziddoap 2y ago
  My complaint was not about the license, it was about how the product represents itself. Linux.org is a much different website than keycloak.org in the way they represent themselves, how they communicate the product, etc.