[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#559134: ITP: shc -- a generic shell script compiler

On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 08:48, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02 2009, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 15:58, Karl Goetz wrote:
> >> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:58:17 +0100
> >> "Dario Minnucci \(midget\)" <debian@midworld.net> wrote:
> >> > * Package name    : shc
> >> 
> >> >  shc's main purpose is to protect your shell scripts from
> >> >  modification or inspection. You can use it if you wish to
> >> >  distribute your scripts but don't want them to be easily
> >> >  readable by other people.
> >> Does this mean its a tool to make software no longer DFSG compatible?
> >> seems a bit odd to include in Debian.
> >
> > Then gcc (and other compilers) are at the odd with DFSG because they
> > produce unreadable code for most people. (some can read machine code)
>         What this argument is missing is the point that the primary (and
>  stated) goal of gcc and the ilk is not obfuscation.
>          And the goal of obfuscation is not preventing tampering (since
>  one may still modify obfuscated code, just not as easily (access
>  control mechanisms do the non tampering bit)).
>         The goal of obfuscation seems to be to prevent people from
>  gaining knowledge; and obfuscation is pointless when the sources are
>  available, so it is facile to argue that the issues are orthogonal. So
>  there is some merit to the argument that this package is against the
>  spirit free software.

I absolutely agree with you here, but if some user of Debian want to use
such tools (libfilter-perl is in repos for long time, I think) and some
maintainer is ready to maintain it, I can't see any valid argument
against it.
Debian does not segregate usage of its packages by any means, IIRC.

>         Having said that, I am not advocating blocking this package (nor
>  am I advocating accepting it), I am just commenting on the arguments
>  being presented here.

I also don't want to advocate for this package because it is
uninteresting for me.

Kind regards,  Milan

Reply to: