Doing some some PCI compliance certification stuff and a scan shows that the site is not compliant, the reason being that TLSv1 is supported. Turning TLSv1 off kills off support for a number of older browsers, all types of browsers.....

(nginx)

    server {
        ssl on;
        #ssl_protocols TLSv1 TLSv1.1 TLSv1.2;
        ssl_protocols TLSv1.1 TLSv1.2; .....
        }
    }

Now I am trying to figure out what to do about this problem, how to detect the clients that do not support TLSv1 and to redirect them to a simple html page instead of the clients pretty much receiving 'connection reset by server' error.

No dice so far, but I thought this was only supposed to happen a year from now (June 2016, not 2015), oh well.

No one owes him anything.

Who said otherwise? Why do you feel compelled to set up a strawman?

It may not matter to the GPL'd code's author whether this guy wants to use it in his own code or not.

That's absolutely true. But it may matter, so it's a great thing for the guy to say "if you do this, I can't use your code." Unless you don't believe in freedom of speech.

There are lots of reasons for writing code.

Sure, and I don't want to discourage anybody from writing code, and if you feel you need to use the GPL to write code, that's great -- do it!

It's (As they say, write your own code) absolutely not a stupid line.

No, it really is. At least in the context you are using it. You don't tell it to users. You're telling it to people who are already writing their own code.

The guy who GPL'd the code wrote it so he can do what he wants with it. That is his right.

Sure it's his right; same as it's the right (free speech and all) of the other guy to say that, for him, that makes the code unusable. "Write your own code" is not an attempt to address the pros and cons of different positions -- it's merely an attempt to shut the argument down.

Surely this other developer can write his own code too?

Exactly. That's what he's doing. And that's part of how LLVM and Toybox come about. And that's why it's stupid to say "write your own code." He's already writing his own fucking code.

Of course GPL'd people don't use that line with end users. After all they are free to use the software however they see fit. That's what the GPL says.

Ah. So the only reason you aren't snarky to end-users is because you're blindly following the religion of the license. Awesome.

As for toybox, llvm, etc. Good for them. Competition is a good thing. LLVM rejuvenated the stagnant GCC project. As for busybox vs toybox, toybox certainly is the better choice if the company doesn't know how to comply with the GPL or is too lazy to do so.

Hey, something we can agree on!

For too long companies thought open source, particularly "free software" mean public domain. It does not, regardless of license.

But this is a strawman in the current context. The upstream poster obviously doesn't believe that. He's not asking to use GPLed software in a way inconsistent with the license. He's telling you that he won't be able to use your software if you use that license, because he won't use it in violation of the license.

There are obligations under copyright law for all source code licenses, even proprietary ones like MS's royalty-free runtime redistribution licenses.

And this is a strawman, too. When somebody says, "if you use this license, I can't use the code" that is a data point, not an indication they are a criminal. Quite the opposite.

So you're one of those losers who wrecks their plane with their relatives in it because you have no experience and no ability to fly by instrument and get killed because you think you can fly by the seat of your pants.

People shouldn't even be allowed to fly with only a private license. If you can't fly at the standard of a commercial pilot, you have no business piloting an airplane.

New pilots' are always glued to the instruments, mature pilots eyes are focused outside except for quick scans of the instruments.

I guess you'll never be an instrument-rated pilot.

Exactly: is it better to have pop-ups from your nav system telling you when and where to turn, or is it better to fumble with a paper map, or drive around endlessly in circles lost, or pulling over and stopping constantly to ask some codger for inaccurate directions (and then getting lost again because the directions were bad)?

I like HUD, but I think that GPS-enabled cruise control (with camera backup) is the best way to handle avoiding excessive speed with technology. The hardware for that is in most cars now.

You can't use cruise control (of any kind) on most non-highway roads. If you're driving through town on a road with stoplights, cruise control is obviously not safe to use there. However, that may be a place that's a favorite spot for cops.

On a highway, you have a good point, but cops do not only issue speeding tickets on limited-access highways.

Downside on the latest one is it will display some radio information (station freq. or CD track number) when you make a change to the radio settings - they don't "stick" for very long. I suppose the idea is to keep the driver's eyes up rather than looking at the center stack for radio settings, but I could live without that info on the screen.

That's exactly the idea. It's better for you to get a quick update (esp. if you're actively adjusting the radio) on your HUD, rather than divert your attention to a different device on the dashboard that requires you to refocus your attention. If you're used to the vehicle and don't need the information, it should be easy for you to mentally ignore it.

I don't know about the OP, but my new Mazda3 has this feature as well. There's a HUD (it projects onto a piece of clear plastic that sits in the driver's view right on top of the instrument panel), and it also has a FOW (forward object warning) system which changes the HUD display to "BRAKE" with an alarm sound if it senses an impending collision.

The HUD itself I find very useful, because it doesn't require me to refocus my eyes much to see it, and has useful information: the current speed, the set speed for cruise control, if the cruise control detects a car ahead, what the following distance is set to, if lane-departure warnings are enabled, and arrows from the nav system telling me when to turn.

I can see how some people might think it's distracting to constantly see your speed like that, but that's a product of our idiotic insistence on arbitrary and overly-low speed limits with harsh penalties for violations. Instead of watching the road for dangers and generally driving safely at a speed we're comfortable with, we need to constantly compare our driving speed to the allowed speed and make sure we aren't going more than, say, 5mph over. Of course, on the highway you can set the cruise control and not worry about it so much, but on surface streets CC isn't such a great idea for obvious reasons, and those are also the roads where you're more likely to need to swerve or brake to avoid a collision. So to anyone complaining about this stuff being distracting, go complain to the cops about it, they're the reason for it.

The problem is people think the GPL code is some free code they can steal and do anything they want with it.

Ummm, no.

At least not more than anything else.

Yes, there are people not following the terms of the license. Just like there are people not following the terms of other licenses.

But conflating those people with the people who are following the terms of the license -- people who say "Sorry, I can't use GCC, so I have to go play in the LLVM sandbox over here, and btw, if you want me to be able to contribute to projects in the future, the GPL is a non-starter" -- thinking or representing that those saying they cannot use your code are the same people as those illegally using your code -- that is just wrong.

Acting like they're whining when they are merely communicating the reality of their situation, that's not helpful either.

Because those aren't the people violating your license. Those are the people explaining why they are not using your code. And any time you gloss over this difference, you're adding to ignorance, rather than removing it.

Which seems to be a perfectly acceptable technique for many GPL proselytizers, but it's at least as dishonest as a lot of the strawmen you set up to rail against.

Perhaps you meant to say there's a lot of GPL software you'd like to incorporate into your own software but you can't because of the license.

I think he said what he meant to say, e.g. if you're an author, please consider using a different license than the GPL, because some people (e.g. him; yes, people are somewhat narcissistic that way, go figure) won't be able to utilize it otherwise.

And you won't get any sympathy either.

He's not looking for sympathy. He's looking for code. Believe it or not, a lot of this code will spring into existence eventually, and the GPL is actually hurting as much as it helps. Would LLVM exist if it weren't for the GPL, or would those people have worked on GCC? What about toybox vs. busybox?

As they say, write your own code!

This is the stupidest line, and it's uttered by GPL proponents all the fucking time. Why is it stupid? Because you don't tell it to users -- you tell it to programmers who are writing their own code.

The second meaning is that by "use" he means that he wants you to write source code for entirely free for him and not only that, he doesn't even want to contribute by sharing with others as you shared with him.

Completely unimaginative, naive, binary thinking. Is it just possible that someone might like to contribute back -- might even have significant contributions that they can and will make to whatever package they use -- but that for some reason outside their control, they cannot divulge everything they are working on?

I write a lot of open source. Personally, I put all my packages under permissive licenses, because I don't want the people who use them to have to worry about the licenses.

If that's the case he's a wretched freeloader.

See, this kind of name calling is exactly why GPL proponents are often called "communists." You don't call users "freeloaders" -- you only call people who might be able to contribute back "freeloaders." From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs, and all that rot.

Except you're not even doing a very good job of following the communist doctrine -- when somebody tells you that, for reasons outside his control, he cannot utilize GPLed software, instead of trying to help him with his needs, you just harangue him and call him bad names.

That's complete and utter bollocks. Here's my philosophy: I only invest time and effort in things that I can reuse under lots of different forseeable circumstances. This means that I'm more than happy to use complete programs that are GPLed -- because I can always use them as programs under any circumstances (there are no field of use restrictions) -- but I try very hard never to use libraries that are GPLed, because I might invest a lot of time learning and contributing to them, and then not be able to reuse them when I need to.

And the LGPL is a non-starter. The philosophy of contributing back the code is actually fine, and if that were all, I wouldn't even mind making that my default license. But the philosophy of having to distribute unlinked code so that users could relink with a new version, and then having to support that -- that's a fucking nightmare.

My experience is that people who show up for a product or service (or pizza, whatever), get what they ordered and are content ... do NOT generally stop what they're doing to run off and tell the world, "My $10 pizza was satisfactory." Anybody who has ever worked retail (and paid attention) can tell you that a hundred happy customers will simply return for more business when they want, but not take time out to communicate to the business or to anyone else that they're happy customers. Life's too short, they just carry on. People who are truly dismayed about their experience, however, will take to every communication method they can dream up to make sure the world knows of their displeasure. And some of the people who do that are just plain nuts, or have very poor judgement, or are either hobby-level or professional trolls. That's who we all hear from, well out of proportion to the real-world experiences of most people. And the internet echo-chamber tends to greatly amplify that effect.

Or in this case, it doens't because you're apparently completely ignorant of the GPL.

So if I disagree that the only valid license to use ever is the GPL, it's simply because I'm ignorant of it. Yes, you're just as insane as the guy I just responded to.

I really don't know why I have to repeat this.

Why did you feel compelled to repeat that "pem is ignorant of the GPL"? Does that help your cause? Or maybe that's not what you meant. Does a lack of clarity help your cause?

It's been said in this thread numerous time, repeated in the past many times all over the internet and it's even on the FSF's website.

Repeat after me: repeating something doesn't make it true.

You don't have to agree to the GPL to use the software.

Fine. Point out where I said it did. And then stop being a name-calling dickhead.

The fact that it's illegal for a private person to accept payment for a car ride principally to protect politically-connected businesses practicing an outdated/obsolete business model is both corrupt and illogical. It's protectionist crony-capitalism. Rather than logically correcting such a corrupt system, they doubled down on it. Just because a government declares something "illegal" does not mean it is morally and/or ethically wrong, or a detriment to society and/or the economy.

Strat