Re: mICQ roundup
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 10:38:34PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> 1. the action as taken by Rüdiger;
> 2. expressing remorse for 1 or lack thereof; and
> 3. implementing harmful code (i.e. involving harm outside the
> not-functioning of the package itself; also note that in this case a
> solution was presented immediately by the message).
> True, but that doesn't change the fact that 1, 2, and 3 above have
> /very/ little to do with each other, and that 1 and 2 have no predictive
> value for the likeliness of 3, especially because I consider that in a
> completely different league.
I think this is where the groups disagree. I believe #1 leads to #3,
particularly in people failing #2.
This is probably one of those fundamental opinions based on varying
personal experience, that's not likely to change very much, so it's
probably not worthwhile to debate it.
Do we agree, at least, that #1 combined with #2 indicates that it's very
likely that he would be willing to repeat #1 in some form? Whether or
not it leads to #3, I don't think people who are willing to put obfuscated
time-bombs in their code should have their code in Debian.
> However, the harm stops at this trust, because most DFSG-free licenses
> have this nice disclaimer: no warranty of any kind, including fitness
> for any particular purpose.
That means he probably doesn't have any legal liability; that's OK, since
I don't think anyone is suggesting he be sued. I don't think it's relevant
beyond that.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: