This is not directed to anyone in particular. But, come on, everyone, let's have a respectful and constructive conversation. There's no need to get snippy.
Thanks, Yosem One of the moderators On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Greg <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Rich, > > On Oct 4, 2014, at 3:50 AM, Rich Kulawiec <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not misunderstanding it. I didn't bother to read it > > > Those two statements seem to be in conflict to me, as you are next making > assumptions about what sorts of limits it puts on peer review. You use the > words "legally constrain the reviewers" but neglect to mention how or why. > That is not unimportant. It would be like me saying that "America is > legally constraining me" but neglecting to mention that they are legally > constraining me from running somebody over with a car. > > In or out of the pool. You wanna be closed source? Go for it. But > please, > stop disengenously pretending to be open source when you're clearly not. > > > So far the only disingenuous language has been coming from you. > > We have been explicit in stating that we are not open source [1,2], and > yet you are accusing us of doing so. > > That is libel and/or slander. > > Please stop. > > Kind regards, > Greg Slepak > > > [1] > https://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2013/09/espionage-3-now-open-source-for-professionals/ > (we preserved the URL to prevent broken internet links, but changed the > title and added edits in bold) > [2] https://www.espionageapp.com (read the section on "source code > available") > > -- > Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with > the NSA. > > > This is dragging out, so I'm going to try to be brief. > > On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 06:07:36PM -0700, Greg wrote: > > You may also be misunderstanding our NDA. > > > I'm not misunderstanding it. I didn't bother to read it, because the > mere fact that it exists is the problem. People who are serious about > open source and peer review of code do not limit peer review, nor attempt > to legally constrain the reviewers, nor try to cherry-pick the reviewers > based on perceived expertise or personal qualities. > > In or out of the pool. You wanna be closed source? Go for it. But > please, > stop disengenously pretending to be open source when you're clearly not. > > ---rsk > > p.s. In re: "[...] we want to do our best to keep the software in the > hands of honest, trustworthy folks [...]" -- you've got to be kidding. > I *hope* you're kidding. > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations > of list guidelines will get you moderated: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at > [email protected]. > > > > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations > of list guidelines will get you moderated: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at > [email protected]. >
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at [email protected].
