On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 03:11:43PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Not to mention that the whole point of freeware and open source software in
> > general is to give everyone the ability to audit the software, not just a
> > select few.
>
> Dan's software isn't open source. I imagine he might value peer
> review, but I'm not aware of his having stated so - certainly not in
> regard to motivation for his distribution terms. Also, making source
> available does not give everyone the ability to audit the software.
> It gives them permission. But most people won't be any better able to
> do a quality audit for having the source.
I said, "freeware and open source software". Do you always selectively
ignore part of what someone says to make your point?
> Only the "select few" will
> be able to audit it well, regardless of the license, and they can
> afford to charge a hefty fee, regardless of the license.
I think "select few" as you have used it needs clarification -- even if only
one half of one percent of all advanced C programmers are part of the "select
few", that's still hundreds or thousands of people, and many of those people
are part of the open source community. A hell of a lot more, anyway, than
are working at so-called "security firms", ready to stamp their approval on
any product they get six or seven digit payments to "certify".
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "No matter how much it changes,
http://flounder.net/publickey.html | technology's just a bunch of wires
GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA | connected to a bunch of other wires."
38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A | Joe Rogan, _NewsRadio_
4:06pm up 157 days, 14:22, 10 users, load average: 0.13, 0.08, 0.03
