Discussion on:

What you need to know about OpenSSH key management

...does this work in?
And does it work in BSD flavors like OSX?

So a self-plug. Before I found out about ssh-copy-id I created a tool called 'keploy' that is hosted out on google code. http://keploy.googlecode.com

Its fairly young (minimal users so far) but it has a few more features than ssh-copy-id and I'm working on a few more. I've been using it for almost three years and for what it currently does, it does it well based on the feedback I have gotten.

Now a plug for someone else's code... I haven't used this, but seahorse in gnome is supposed to do ssh key management for you as well, and I think it will push out the key too.

I can tell you one reason its user base might be a little small:

It's distributed under terms of a license more restrictive than that used by OpenSSH itself. Why would you do that?

while possible that its a reason, i doubt its towards the top of the list for reasons why it has few users. I'm inclined to think exposure, availability, and packaging would be much higher on the list, but i could be wrong.

First off, my code has to be Python and GPL compatible, because it is imports built-in and GPL modules (next version is going to migrate to a paramiko backend which is LGPLv2+).

The GPL is not a bad license, even if its not as liberal as BSD. Yes, version 3 is a more restrictive than 2 for some, but regardless of the version (because I maintain my choice in the GPL) the users get the same product, its just the people that would import the module into their code that would be affected.

Uptake of GPLv3 is not nearly as significant as GPLv2 at this point, but it is a young license. However even in its infancy, it has a slightly higher adoption rate than BSD 2.0 according to Black Duck's statistics.

http://www.blackducksoftware.com/oss/licenses/

> First off, my code has to be Python and GPL compatible, because it is imports built-in and GPL modules

The BSD license is GPL-compatible. As long as those modules are not actually distributed with the users get the same product, its just the people that would import the module into their code that would be affected. However even in its infancy, it has a slightly higher adoption rate than BSD 2.0 according to Black Duck's statistics.

I'm not sure that really adds up to anything meaningful. So what? It is when the worse license is more popular that better licenses should be most strongly supported.

None of this adds up to much of a reason for using GPLv3. What's the real reason you use it?

I, for one, won't likely use it under that license -- and I certainly won't contribute any code to it.

Before I answer your question, I have to ask... do you use a modern GNU\Linux system? Have you looked at the license currently implemented on the standard GNU utilities? Of course, one could say that GNU's products using their own license does not count, but considering the license is good enough for the tools that I use every day, and have for years, I think its good enough for me.

Getting back to your questions and comments...

Actually licensing does matter for linking as well, and there has been some discussion I've read about this specifically in relation to how python does its linking. However, none of it has been solidified, because that would require precedence to be set in court.

I like the GPL, I believe in what is accomplishes, and I see the changes added for v3 as a benefit to the majority of the community. I did read several articles, both direct propaganda from GNU and others discussing this when I made the decision, and while I don't recall all of my exact reasons, I stand by my decision at the time.

If you don't like the use of GPLv3 in my code, then I apologize that we disagree and I bid you farewell.