On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:17:31 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > 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". Yearning for forms that have existed in the past, but no longer exist now, is not too useful. It is similar to yearning for forms that do not exist and have never existed. Hence I don't agree that it is "just as good" as choosing which form is preferred among those that currently exist. [...] > > 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. Not if the program is difficult to understand even for its maintainers... > > Otherwise, the distinction between proprietary and open-source would > be academic, both users and developers seeing no practical difference > between the two. The difference is that a program where the source is kept secret is difficult to understand for everyone, except for its developers. A program where the former source got lost, instead, is difficult to understand for everyone, without exceptions: nobody has the monopoly of a secret that helps him/her to understand/audit/modify the program. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgp29Wbsh4rK4.pgp
Description: PGP signature