Morlock Elloi wrote: >>eye-opener (the full paper goes into more detail). My conclusion >>after reading this (well before also actually, but it re-enforced the >>view) is that the safest and simplest thing to do is to just publish >>such software anonymously. > > > Again, motivation. > > The number of programmers that would publish a usable package which has not > even theoretical means of being traced to them is very limited. Even signing it > and keeping the key is a risk. > > Also, there is a question of quality. From what I've seen, best engineers work > for shitloads of money. Open source stars are far from the best. Some are > pretty shitty. And 100% anonymous ones are bound to be even worse. > > It takes a rather unique person to anonymously publish a good package that will > make a difference and which any bozo could claim for himself. > > The fact that such even never happened supports this view. > > We are running against the basic law: nature abhors philanthropy. > > It will not happen. > > > ===== > end > (of original message) > > Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: > Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards. > http://movies.yahoo.com/ > >
It will if it can be seen that "philanthropy" is actually in fact in the donor's best material interest in the long run. Or even the short one. There are felons who can grasp this, and if Sen. Hollings et al. have their way, there will be many, many more. jbdigriz
