On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 01:00:57PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:00:06 +0000 Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > People who are not operating under their real identity *cannot* be > > trusted because there can be no penalty for breach of trust, it's that > > simple. > > Well, trust and respect can grow for a fake identity (nick or nym), if > this fake identity is used consistently in time. It shouldn't. At any point they could suddenly go insane; there's nothing to discourage them, as they can simply switch to a different throwaway identity. > > So while you can participate in this manner, you'll always be > > an outsider. Anything that you say or do will not be taken at face > > value, it will be scrutinised and double-checked. > > I thought that reasonable care was spent to scrutinise anything being > said by anyone, here. I generally assume that -legal regulars repost licenses correctly, don't mangle stuff when copying it from webpages, etc. With anonymous users you can't. > > The impact this has on free software development should be obvious. > > Well, if you mean that anonymous and pseudonymous contributions are more > difficult to handle copyright-wise, it's true. > But, for instance, would you treat a (reproducible) bug report by an > anonymous sender as less valuable? I would treat a patch by an anonymous sender as less valuable. It requires considerable scrutiny, because there's a good chance it contains an exploit. With a patch from a person with a known identity, there's not much chance of it being malicious. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature