On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:43:59 +0200 Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:00:19 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > > [...] > > We can declare that the source did exist, but it doesn't anymore. > > I don't think so. Why not? "The preferred form of modification among those that have existed" is just as good as "The preferred form of modification among those that currently exist". > > People use open-source software for a variety of reasons. Some people > > use it for security reasons. Auditing a program where all copies of the > > C++ source no longer exist is exactly as difficult as auditing the > > program where all copies of the C++ source are kept secret by the > > maintainer. > > This may be true, but a program should *not* be declared non-free, just > because it is insecure or difficult to audit. Being insecure shouldn't be a reason for a program to be declared non-free, but being unreasonably difficult to understand should be. Otherwise, the distinction between proprietary and open-source would be academic, both users and developers seeing no practical difference between the two.
Attachment:
pgphuJ6vz5Y6M.pgp
Description: PGP signature