Red Hat bugs - another open source PR hit?

,----[ Quote ]
| Red Hat's Mark Cox quickly pointed out in a blog that a) the number was
| wrong, b) it counted flaws in all the third party products associated with
| Red Hat's OS, and worst of all c) it counted several bugs six times, since it
| added up fixes made for the same bug, on multiple Red Hat products.
|
| [...]
|
| Even if there were a greater number of reported bugs on these open source
| products, that would not equal lower security. It could just mean that there
| is more publicity for known bugs in the open source world (as we saw
| recently, when code-checker Coverity announced it had found around 8000 bugs
| in open source projects, I commented here that this was actually good news
| for open source).
|
| Obviously, whether or not Secunia deliberately got its sums wrong, it remains
| the case that "open source security flaws" is a much more arresting headline
| than "Microsoft security flaws" - for exactly the sam reason that "man bites
| dog" is more interesting than "dog bites man".
`----

http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,...469549b,00.htm

Linux is scaring quite a few people. It's disruptive to their careers.


Recent:

We’re not thieves. We just can’t read contracts (McAfee and Open Source)

,----[ Quote ]
| There is a lot of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) spread about Free/Libre
| and Open Source (FLOSS) licenses. While companies dependant on older
| competing business models suggest these licenses are complex or “ambiguous”,
| the reality is quite the opposite. *
`----

http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/insig...d-open-source/
http://tinyurl.com/39pjml


McAfee throws some FUD at the GPL

,----[ Quote ]
| In its annual report, Windows security software vendor McAfee told its
| investors that open source software licence terms it vaguely characterised
| as " ambiguous" might "result in unanticipated obligations regarding our
| products."
|
| [...]
|
| That statement says several things. First, it reveals that McAfee does use at
| least some open source software derived code in its products. Second, it
| betrays that McAfee has misappropriated that open source software and thus is
| committing copyright infringement, because it doesn't distribute that open
| source software derivative source code. Third, by calling its products that
| include open source software code "proprietary", McAfee shows that it really
| doesn't want to shoulder its GPL licence obligations, but instead wants to
| both have its cake and eat it too.
`----

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...throws-fud-gpl


McAfee to pay $13.8 million to settle backdating lawsuits

,----[ Quote ]
| McAfee has taken two major steps toward closing the stock-option backdating
| scandal that has plagued the company for the past two years.
`----

http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20...nfoworld/94209