On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:56 PM, A. Mani <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:57 PM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On the other hand, there may be few exceptional cases, where it may > >> be in the public interest to keep source code closed – such as > >> software that breaks encryption. > > > > Oh god. DONT USE ENCRYPTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN PUBLICLY TESTED FOR > > VULNERABILITIES. And when a vulnerability is exposed dump it ASAP. > > > > > Yes, that is the dumbest part of this public s/w nonsense > Seems to be a project to protect things like 'US interests' at the > cost of everybody else. > A classical article on this is: > http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-9909.html > > > Best > > A. Mani > > *In my view, Guru should write only one line for defining public software Public Software are publically o̶w̶n̶e̶d̶ licensed software. Ex Software released under Free and Open Source Software.* He may explain "Why Public Software" to any extend but it may be a good or bad to define public software with a full article which says non-FOSS can be public software. It will be best, non to define and just say, public software is FOSS. -- ┌─────────────────────────┐ │ Narendra Sisodiya │ http://narendrasisodiya.com └─────────────────────────┘
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
