On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:56 AM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday 03 September 2010 02:09:14 Narendra Sisodiya wrote: > > 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.* > > Narendra this statement is wrong. There is no Public licenced > software, unless it is software specifically assigned to the public > domain.
I never said,, Pubic software is public domain software. Public software are public licensed software... for example, *General Public License (GPL) *is an example... *I hate public domain software*.... (why why why ?? it obvious , if you code something in public domain, M$ and other companies will modify and release it under non-FOSS license..... In order to protest code, one must license his software. with GPL software remain under control of hackers , forever) > > Infact using the term OpenSource now seems dangerous. > > So far BSDish (or OpenSource) software when taken into the private > domain, starts suffering from bitrot and extracts a heavy toll in > maintanence costs. However when used in egovernance, it's the > taxpayer that will foot the bill for bitrot. > > Agree > > > 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. >
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
