Palamida Joins Hand with GPL MUDMeister, McAfee. Why?

Palamida makes available a great service to many of us by offering a glimpse at the increasing adoption rates of GPLv3.

“Palamida must realise that McAfee is no friend of free open source software.”Several weeks ago we defended Palamida in face of accusations that it had been spreading FUD to market itself. In order to continue and defend Palamida, as well as to ensure it gives no justification for yet more such accusations, we ought to make the following observation.

Several hours ago, the following press release showed up and it suggests that Palamida is liaising with McAfee. Palamida must realise that McAfee is no friend of free open source software [1, 2, 3]. It is a classic proprietary software company that responds with disinterest at best and hostility at worst when it comes to open source. The press release also contains this bit:

"Open source is no more or no less risky than proprietary code," said Mark Tolliver, CEO of Palamida. "But its use often goes undocumented and as such falls outside of existing application security policies. Palamida's integration with ePO will enable joint customers to manage and secure their use of open source as part of a comprehensive security strategy."

Again, why? It's well understood that there is a fine balance between the need to sell services, e.g. using fear, and also the reality of reassurance and honesty. That's not a problem. The involvement with McAfee, however, brings doubt to mind because the company is believed to be a GPL violator, not just a source of GPL FUD (c/f references at the top).

Additionally, on the very same day there is another form of Microsoft-esque GPL FUD. Have a look:

MDDL, or Market Data Definition Language, is an open industry standard XML dialect for securities market data. The announcement of the new license aims to remove possible ambiguity regarding intellectual property issues associated with using MDDL. “This confirms that MDDL is an open standard and, since it is a “non-GPL” license, it is not subject to “downstream” licensing concerns.” according to Bill Nichols, Program Director for Securities Processing Automation at FISD.

"“non-GPL” license," it says. It also mentions "intellectual property" despite the fact that this term is meaningless and it's "open source" that this licence purports to be (making it somewhat inherently incompatible). It is beginning to seem like even a software licence with aspirations of being perceived as open source emits FUD as intense and effective as those .DOC-formatted whitepapers about the GPL, which you can download directly from microsoft.com.⬆