> Scribit Marcus Brinkmann dies 30/04/2006 hora 22:29: > > I can even tell you why there is an ethical issue. The reason is that > > non-trivial confinement separates ownership of digital content into a > > party that has access and modification right and a party which has the > > right to decide durability.
Marcus: What you say is definitely NOT true of the constructor (Well, it is true in a sense, but this is due to a bug. I will explain.). If I instantiate a program with a constructor, I have the right to do any operation that the program supports, and I also have the right to destroy the program. The bug in the present constructor is a small violation of this, but not one that really matters: at the moment, the *creator* of the constructor could destroy it, with the effect that the binary image would be deleted out from under my running instance. This can be fixed by modifying the constructor trivially: I can ask that it make a copy of the address space into storage that I supply (without disclosing the copy to me). After that, the creator can destroy the constructor itself, but they cannot destroy my instance of the program. So: I think you must be thinking of something else. Can you explain? Also, I truly do not understand why this presents a moral hazard. This is not a question of selective disclosure. Can you explain the moral hazard here? shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
