You should submit a feature request for that. It is possible to send from the aliases on other platforms; might just be something their devs need some critical mass to work on.

I’m not really seeing much in the way of cybersecurity tools in this thread. These are all FOSS and usable without extra cost (although some have paid upgrades)

• Zed Attack Proxy is something I use pretty regularly.
• Snort is a great IPS.
• Metasploit works great with some extra tooling.
• ClamAV is the Linux standard.
• Fail2ban is great for hardening.
• Crowdsec has replaced Fail2ban for a lot of folks.

I’m not sure I follow the closed source bit. For example, Virus Total is closed source but a something used by cybersecurity professionals across the world. Most of the software that powers cloud giants is closed source and security professionals everywhere accept the shared security model.

Closed source matters for encryption, not necessarily tooling. It’s a red herring unless you’re talking about a tool’s ability to encrypt/decrypt.

~I’m not sure why you brought up the CC license; unlicensed GitHub repos do not use that and, generally, it’s understood that CC licenses cover documentation only for the reasons you cited.~

I think you and I fundamentally disagree about the point of FSF. Open source is not a vow of poverty, you’re right; copyleft damn near is. Open source is an umbrella that covers both open and copyleft licenses. For the average business that wants to keep closed source code, copyleft modules are poison. I’ve handled the compliance process for both SMB and enterprise companies. Unless you’re someone like Red Hat, copyleft is basically noncommercial. AGPL, SSPL, and BSL are joke licenses that also present the exact same problems as copyleft albeit much worse for businesses to pick up. If you couldn’t tell, I don’t like copyleft code because I don’t think it’s okay to place restrictions on code beyond the basic litigation coverage things like the Apache 2.0 offer.

~As for what SN is doing, my read of that was the code would be AGPL moving forward. My understanding is that you don’t need contributor approval to apply it (depending on the original license; in the case of the unlicensed code they have full power) but you do need contributor approval to remove it. If you’re right and they’re going to drop it after applying it, they’re opening themselves up to litigation should someone choose to pursue it.~

Edit: just looked at the repo; they replaced the root AGPL with the CC license instead of, say, linking the CC license for docs and leaving AGPL in place. The individual packages don’t have licenses and the root code (eg scripts) don’t have one either. Ignore what I said about SN; they did everything wrong and it’s stressful to look at.

If they push AGPL, then the code is still open, it’s just explicitly copyleft. Any GPL license imposes serious restrictions on what the end user can do. AGPL further restricts what end users can do. Copyleft is similar but different from open source. Basically all they’re doing is leaving the code open to view but preventing anyone from money off of it.

Honestly for people like yourself this is exactly what you want for privacy software. Copyleft with commercial restrictions is basically the whole FSF vibe. This is much ado about nothing; previously the code was unlicensed on GitHub which is much more restrictive than AGPL.