Paul Jarc wrote:
>
SNIP
>
> Dan's software isn't open source.
Oh, really? By whose definition? I have the source, and I have the
actual
program. I suppose if you're some ESR/RMS fanatic, this does not comply
with
your vision of "open source". The source is available, and by Dan's own
words
you can do what you like with it. As far as I am concerned, this meets
anyone's
definition of "open source" except a fanatic.
> 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. 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.
So, what is your point here? When was the last time a serious security
fanatic went through:
a. Linux kernel source code.
b. BSD kernel source code.
c. Solaris kernel source code.
d. etc., etc., etc.
Joe average is not capable of auditing this source code: therefore: it
is
insecure. ;)
>
> paul
GW
