Thanks for spelling it out, and Nathan. NK On Oct 11, 2012 8:12 PM, "Nathan" <nat...@freitas.net> wrote:
> Ryan, > > > mm. It says on the SC website that it will use > >"Open Source Peer-Reviewed Encryption," > > "Peer Reviewed Encryption and Hashing Algorithms," > > and also says "we believe in open source." Is that very ambiguous > > As a reporter working on a "piece", you should make sure you understand > the different between using open-source and being open-source. Having code > availability for private audit or dumping a zip file of code that doesn't > quite build entirely is very different from bring a fully transparent > open-source project. I am not splitting hairs here, just trying to make > sure that you look beyond vague statements and perhaps ask "where's your > git repo going to be hosted?" or "what license are you planning to use?" or > even "will an independent developer be able to compile and run their own > version of your software?". > > As an example, Phil's much heralded ZRTP protocol was openly published but > server code to enable Asterisk support for it had a very ambiguous license > that made it unusable in anything but a pure academic setting. > > Like "organic", open-source is a term that is easily claimed but not often > truly fulfilled. Nadim should be given more credit for the completely > transparent and engaged open-source project he runs, and for defending an > approach and philosophy that he is completely living up to. > > +n8fr8 > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech >
-- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
