David Haslam wrote: > It's not really like using SSL or SSH to protect monetary transactions or > other secrets which both parties in the communication session have a vested > interest (and often a legal or moral obligation) to keep secure, [before], > during, and after the session. Ultimately, the security of https depends on > the authenticity of security certificates. There is no such parallel in the > case we are considering. > > Consider how some proprietary software vendors take rigorous steps to ensure > that the risk of illicit copying of their programs is minimised.
Most of these rigorous steps are rapidly overcome if enough impetus is there. At this moment in time our encrypted modules are better protected than e.g. DVDs with their dvdcss encryption. I think most publishers as such are happy with a token protection which somehow states "You should not really do this!". Look at e-sword with its perfunctory protection until recently. And the current form is probably not much better If it prevents the decent people from messing too much (beyond e.g. private export into other better liked programmes) then this is probably good enough. The problems with us are probably more about perception of being irrelevant, not worth the effort - and that can so easily become a self-perpetuating matter. Peter _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
