(10-11-2013, 11:06 PM)Kuci Wrote: atom, epixoip, radix...they all know how the project collaboration and management work. That's why I don't understand why hashcat is closed-source. They probably don't believe in community anymore after SL3 incidents...
Unfamiliar with the "SL3 incidents", but searching the web it sounds like at one point someone took some of their code, put it in another piece of software, and tried to sell it.
If the Hashcat source were available, someone could of course take the code, incorporate it into their own software, and sell it. But if it were licensed under the GPL or a similar copyleft license, whoever distributed the code would be legally obligated to make the modified source available. So with the "SL3 incidents", the GPL could have been helpful: The people who released the software incorporating Hashcat would be required to either make their source available, cease distribution, or be liable for copyright infringement. That is not a hypothetical requirement; there are non-profit organizations like the FSF that will help enforce the GPL. When the third party complies with the GPL by making the source available for the software they are selling, someone can just build the software and redistribute it free of charge.