Stuxnet/Flame/Duqu Uses GPL Code 221
David Gerard writes "It seems the authors of Stuxnet/Duqu/Flame used the LZO library, which is straight-up GPL. And so, someone has asked the U.S. government to release the code under the GPL. (Other code uses various permissive licenses. As works of the U.S. federal government, the rest is of course public domain.) Perhaps the author could enlist the SFLC to send a copyright notice to the U.S. government..."
Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't take long for such attitudes to spread throughout society.
But hey, Obama said he would have, like, the totally most open presidency ever. Surely the new boss will prove himself different from the old boss in SOME way. Surely!
Not gonna happen (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are already breaking laws left and right why would you bother to acknowledge copyright?
The people who released this have no respect for the law, and see themselves as above it they will not comply.
Who gets to request code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Under the GPL, only people that the executable was distributed to are allowed to request the code - and since it's a weapon, the US government isn't alliowed to send it to Iran.
Problem solved.
Re:is the CIA selling these viruses? (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole thing is irrelevant due to state sovereign immunity. Good luck suing the government when they have to permit themselves to being sued.
Re:Implications (Score:3, Insightful)
That would imply that the government is ruled by law rather than the arbitrary decisions of a few "top men".
But since we know that to be true, I guess we can all sing like the Who: Won't Get Fooled Again (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Won%27t-Get-Fooled-Again-lyrics-The-Who/761EF79AAB42FA9C48256977002E72F9)
I'm just wondering when the revolution begins. I don't think that the younger generation realize how dire the situation really is since most of them have less than a zero's interest in history. If they'd even take the time read music lyrics that were being sung 50 years ago, they'd easily see that things are even worse now than they were before.
When does the shooting start?
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Insightful)
/ end rant
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously copyright is the most important issue of our time. Look at how much went into ACTA/SOPA/PIPA/CISPA and how little is going into fixing our education, healthcare, research and poverty issues.
Ask away (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, no one knows who wrote it. Sure, there is speculation that the U.S. and/or Israel did, but no one knows for sure. The simplest thing for the government to do is say "We can't because we didn't write it." Then, it falls on the asker to prove they did.
Re:Clever idea, actually. (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you know they didn't buy a commercial license?
Re:Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly we should take our cue to start a bloody revolution from music lyrics written by people 50 years ago.
Speaking as someone who does actually read history, I know what happens to people while they are in the midst of their glorious revolutions. That is to say, privation, disorder and mass slaughter. That wonderful period is then most of the time followed by dictatorship or other forms of tyranny. The good times come decades later when someone has managed to restore order.
You'll excuse me if I hope that no one gets around to it for another 50 years or so.
Re:Implications (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet somewhere in the middle lies the answer.
It is of use to note that we celebrate a war every year. On the 4th of July we light off fireworks to celebrate going to war with the British and winning (technically we celebrate our declaration to be independent, but we all know damn well that had we lost or had there been no contest, there likely wouldn't be fireworks every year).
Our country does need a revolution. It needs a real tea party, a mass of people who simply refuse to follow governments orders.
The challenge, of course is critical mass. I would wager that in 1776 well over 50% of the population of the nascent United States of America was willing to outright defy the ruling government, while somewhere north of 90% of the remainder at least supported said dissidents. With the combination of the Democrats buying votes from the poor/uneducated/minority/grafters/etc with entitlement programs and the Republicans selling government support to corporations, I believe a civil revolution is impossible.
thk1 is right, an armed revolution is bad, but I'm not sure no revolution is better...
Re:Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
It is of use to note that we celebrate a war every year. On the 4th of July we light off fireworks to celebrate going to war with the British and winning (technically we celebrate our declaration to be independent, but we all know damn well that had we lost or had there been no contest, there likely wouldn't be fireworks every year).
Oh, I dunno. It probably wouldn't be on 4 July. But the Brits have fireworks on Guy Fawkes day (remember, remember, the fifth of November) to celebrate the capture and execution of terrorist plotters in 1605. There would probably be another annual celebration to commemorate the capture and execution of the colonial terrorists (or is that "militants"? it's so hard to remember the correct terminology) of 1776. So there would be fireworks twice a year.
Re:Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
The government, while it makes the laws, is subject to the rule of law. The government can be replaced and the laws changed. But by agreeing on a set of laws that apply to everyone is how we keep our noses out of the aforementioned violent chaos.
Revolution is not the answer. Civic engagement is. If we take notice, if we talk about and we insist on accountability and seek to elect politicians that act in our interest. A mature and educated electorate is the required cultural change and I'm optimistic we're heading in that direction. The current shenanigans are not irreperable and are serving a purpose in getting people to take notice.
Re:Implications (Score:4, Insightful)
"If they'd even take the time read music lyrics that were being sung 50 years ago, they'd easily see that things are even worse now than they were before."
Worse for who and in what ways and please be SPECIFIC.
There is no draft so everyone who goes to war is an eager volunteer with no illusions. (I served as an eager volunteer with no illusions, BTW, and would cheerfully do so again.) The Iraq war is over, A-stan will be shortly.
The economy is recovering (it's just another Recession, we've had MANY Recessions, they are NORMAL parts of the economic cycle!) and there are no serious civil rights problems _compared_to_fifty_years_ago_.
Fifty years ago was 1962. Civil rights workers were in routine danger of being SHOT. Things got worse before they got better:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/price&bowers.htm [umkc.edu]
Have some school bombing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing [wikipedia.org]
Now we have a (b)lack President, vastly more civil rights for LGBT folks, legal cannabis in a few areas, greater social mobility, and a much higher standard of living.
Re:Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
The information was leaked because the malware got out. Nobody "leaked" Stuxnet, other than Stuxnet itself.
Re:Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the fault of the judicial system. That's largely the fault of the legislative branch, who enacts laws mandating certain levels of sentencing. And that blame can largely be brought back to the people who voted for those representatives, who demanded that people be "tough on crime."
Re:Implications (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, 1/5, 3/5, 1/5 or 1/3,1/3,1/3 I will stand corrected, as by either numbers I was wrong. Do you think even 1/5 of our current population would be willing to push back? I think not.
-nB
Re:Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if 'hiding something' is a significant concern for you, perhaps you should discuss this with your congressman/senator. For example, your own gov't refuses to disclose it's own interpretation of the Patriot act.