Re: [debian-devel] Status of mICQ code audit
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:57:25 +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:07, Rdiger Kuhlmann wrote:
> > d) the libel published in the Debian Weekly News of 2003-02-18; cf
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200302/msg01391.html
> >
> > .. none of those can be fixed by you.
>
> The DWN article in question is at the following URL:
> http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2003/07/
>
> Reading that article I don't think that there is any basis for claiming malice
> on the part of the author. Also the article is factually accurate although
> very reserved (you should thank the author for being so restrained IMHO).
>
> So your claim of libel seems to fail on the grounds of the material being
> factually correct and not of malicious intent. For published material to be
> considered libel it has to be both false and malicious. I don't think that
> anyone would consider the DWN article of week 7 to be either false or
> malicious.
I wouldn't call it malicious, but I question the use of the word "harmful".
It should have been replaced, attributed or removed. I wondered about it
at the time but didn't comment as the article had already been released.
But maybe it can still be updated (just the web version?)? I've cc'd the
DWN to see if this is possible.
Perhaps the change should be something like:
- Martin Loschwitz proposed to remove mICQ from Debian entirely since the
upstream author has placed a harmful and obfuscated easter egg in the
code, bypassing the maintainer's testing.
+ Martin Loschwitz proposed to remove mICQ from Debian entirely since the
upstream author has placed a disabling and obfuscated easter egg in the
code, bypassing the maintainer's testing.
I wouldn't call disabling the use of the program and telling the user why
harmful. Thus I don't think the word harmful is appropriate. Some such as
Russell Coker do think that the word harmful is appropriate [1] and for
legitimate reasons. Although, was the behavior to do it at a specific
"time" or at startup everytime? If the DWN thinks it's harmful but wants
to acknowledge that some think it wasn't then perhaps a change like this:
+ Martin Loschwitz proposed to remove mICQ from Debian entirely since the
upstream author has placed what some consider to be a harmful and
obfuscated easter egg in the code, bypassing the maintainer's testing.
If requested and the DWN is willing, a retraction note in the next DWN
might be done, or maybe just a comment.
I'm hoping there's no flames generated by this. I hope the DWN crew will
review my message (and related information) and then take whatever they
feel is appropriate action, perhaps in consultation with the upstream
author if appropriate.
Drew Daniels
Reply to: