Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3

On January 11, 2017 4:47:30 PM EST, Sean Whitton wrote: >Hello Scott, > >On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:04:02PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Yes, but all your proposed GR does is move the problem one definition >> to the right. > >I don't follow this objection. The

Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3

Hello Scott, On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:04:02PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Yes, but all your proposed GR does is move the problem one definition > to the right. I don't follow this objection. The SC is not meant to contain exhaustive details of policies. At present, though, I think it

Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3

Hello, On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 09:17:27AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Also, this is IMO nothing for a foundational document. But some docs > around it as explanation on how real world handles things. Do we have such a doc right now? Possibly somewhere on the wiki I'm unaware of? -- Sean

Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3

Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3"): > What is the definition of serious and what is the definition of limited? It is excellent that Sean's proposal for the SC leaves that vague. Of course we may want to actually implement

Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3

On 14549 March 1977, Sean Whitton wrote: > No-one who understands how GNU/Linux distributions work thinks that > there is anything problematic about short-term embargos of information > about serious security bugs. However, the SC is not just for those > people: it's also something for newcomers