Re: GNU License and Computer Break Ins
Paul Serice <serice@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Well, I guess it's a couple of things. First I feel betrayed. Given
> all the comments I've received about Stallman's reasonably
> well-publicized philosophy I suppose I have no one to blame but myself.
Nobody thinks (but you) that the GPL grants to people the right to
break into a computer. If you feel betrayed, it's by a
misunderstanding; at worst, it's an ambiguous sentence which you read
incorrectly
> Maybe I'm late to realize it, but I feel, with good reason, that
> Stallman is not trustworthy. So in the same sense that I would want to
> look over source code from an untrusted source, given the prevalence of
> the GPL, I wonder if it has been analyzed for trojan horses or legally
> analogous beasts.
RMS is amazingly trustworthy. He is the sort of person (I can attest
from personal experience working with him for eight years) who will
not lie under almost any circumstance, except perhaps to protect a
friend from injustice. He is completely forthright and explicit about
what he stands for and does.
You can also be sure that there are plenty of people around who read
through GNU code and peruse it. Trojan horses are exceedingly
unlikely; they are much more likely from miscreants breaking in and
subverting source archives than they are from a miscreant programmer.
> I mean, just what _exactly_ do we allow to happen to our computer and
> our privacy by putting software on our systems with a copyright from an
> untrusted source? If you trust Stallman, then it's no big deal, but if
> you think he would break any law to have his own peace of mind, then its
> worrisome.
Why? Microsoft can and has done the same. Unreadable source means
that you have no guarantee. And unlike commercial outfits, RMS is
completely above-board about his goals and techniques for reaching
them.
Thomas
Reply to: