At 10:47 AM 2/16/2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote: >> If users are fully informed about what a Trojan horse REALLY does, >> they may think twice about "running" it. > >Obviously everybody should be carefully before using a tool >and study and understand for yourself what it really does >an not rely on what other people say about it. > >But that doesn't mean that the tool inherits any >"evil" purpose that the creator of it had in the >process of creation.
I disagree. A Trojan horse that, for example, trashes hard disks or creates zombies for DoS attacks is fundamentally bad. This is why it's called "malware." >I think the difference is that I don't consider Stallmans >agenda unethical, only unrealistic. > >Forcing people to releasing small bug fixes is one thing It's a start down a slippery slope -- toward appropriating any or all of their code at will. >> >Hitler supported building new autobahns (motor ways). >> >I support build new autobahns (motor ways). >> > >> >However this doesn't make me "evil". >> >> I could invoke Godwin's Law here, but I won't. ;-) >> >> In the analogy above, suppose you find out that the >> autobahns in question won't actually go anywhere that >> citizens (including you!) want to go, but are designed >> to support military invasions of other countries in >> which many innocent people will be needlessly hurt >> or killed. Do you still support them? > >Yes, because the motor ways that can transport troups >can also transport trade goods or people visiting >other countries in friendship. The more trade the >more interdepence and the less risk for war. Ah, but the government's terms won't let commercial vehicles on the road. >> Yes, it can. You can forfeit your fair use rights via >> a contract. And the FSF licenses are profferred contracts. > >That remains to be decided in court. Actually, no. Fair use rights can be signed away. Non-disclosure agreements, for example, prevent people from doing things that might otherwise be allowed as fair use. >> >I don't think they will have much luck though, >> >they have already tried to stretch the boundaries >> >of copyright law with the GPL, >> >> This is another reason why the GPL is likely to be >> ruled invalid. An attempt to use copyright law to >> do anything beyond the purposes stated in the US >> Constitution can be invalidated as "copyright abuse." >> (This argument has been made in the Napster litigation >> and Judge Patel has taken it quite seriously.) Certainly, >> "turning copyright on its head" (these are Stallman's own >> words for what a "copyleft" license does) would qualify >> as copyright abuse. Hence, all "copyleft" licenses are >> probably invalid and unenforceable. > >I think saying that the GPL is copyright abuse it taking >it little far. Not at all. Read the case law. Type "copyright abuse" into any search engine. --Brett
