[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Full-Disclosure] Web sites compromised by IIS attack

To: Maarten <fulldisc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Web sites compromised by IIS attack
From: Barry Fitzgerald <bkfsec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:33:51 -0400

Maarten wrote:

On Friday 02 July 2004 23:33, Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
No, I'm not wrong.
The discussion is about who's responsible for support of said software.
There's no obligation through the GNU GPL that support is required if
money changes hands, however the point of the discussion is who's
responsible for support of said software in a situation where the
software produced is broken and supported.
Red Hat sells support. The act of taking binaries and actively and intentionally redistributing them is a support service.
Well that is open to debate. If I just download Redhat, they make no money off me. Do they still have to fix my software then ? Are they responsible ?

Nope - it's the act of exchanging money for the support contract that makes the obligated to provide said support.

-Barry

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

References:
- RE: [Full-Disclosure] Web sites compromised by IIS attack
  - From: Stuart Fox (DSL AK)
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Web sites compromised by IIS attack
  - From: Denis Dimick
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Web sites compromised by IIS attack
  - From: Barry Fitzgerald
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Web sites compromised by IIS attack
  - From: Maarten

Prev by Date: [Full-Disclosure] Re: [ISN] E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible
Next by Date: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Beta Advisories
Previous by thread: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Web sites compromised by IIS attack
Next by thread: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Web sites compromised by IIS attack
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread