| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The trojaning of mICQThe trojaning of mICQPosted Feb 22, 2003 2:11 UTC (Sat) by Steve_Baker (subscriber, #265)In reply to: The trojaning of mICQ by proski Parent article: The trojaning of mICQ
You cannot justify Debians' actions just because you don't agree with the developer. It would have been better perhaps if he had found some other way to get his point across, but I don't believe for a minute that he hadn't already exhausted most "diplomatic" methods before doing this. Don't forget that he would be helpless to stop the debian maintainer from removing his bitch message, which was the whole point of obfuscating it and waiting for a specific date in which to appear. He did that precisely because the Debian maintainer has the power to shut him up as it were. Remember that the Debian maintainer was roundly criticized for effectively failing to do so. Regardless of his so called "childishness", Debian made the greater error in removing his name from the copyright file. That is not excusable, and his later actions do not change the fact that Debian owes him an apology. And I stand by that assertion.
(Log in to post comments)
The trojaning of mICQ Posted Feb 22, 2003 20:51 UTC (Sat) by mongre26 (guest, #4224) [Link] I agree Steve, the developer can add any features to his program he wishes, no warranties expressed or implied.It is the responsibility of the maintainers/users of the software to use it responsibly. If they do not like his features, they should not use his software. It is their choice. The removal of the name from the copyright is the big issue here. That is expressley prohibited under copyright law and illegal in countries that have signed international copyright agreements. The maintainer should be severely chastised for this, even more so since he is ostensibly a supported of software libre. As far as this being some tip of the iceberg situation as the original LWN editor suggested, please, enough with the scare mongering. There is nothing new here save perhaps people had their assumptions challenged. Using software, commercial or open source is a calculated risk. There are no guarantees. However I would suspect that we have much more to fear from incompetence than malice when it comes to software.
The ethics of "trojaning" vs. stealing code. Posted Feb 24, 2003 2:03 UTC (Mon) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] <quote>Regardless of his so called "childishness", Debian made the greater error in removing his name from the copyright file. That is not excusable, and his later actions do not change the fact that Debian owes him an apology. </quote> Initially, I was asking myself what sort of irresponsible general maintainer this was, to do what he did. Then I realized the truth of the above. His name wasn't in the copyright file, so he had every reason to assume none of his code would be in their version anyway. Thus, he could write whatever he wanted and it wouldn't see the light of day, because it wouldn't be triggered by being in their distribution, because they would have removed it as code from someone not in the copyright file, rather than stealing from him, which taking his code without attribution is, in effect. Looked at it that way, all he did was prove that they were stealing his code, while at the same time demonstrating a VERY important point about what he COULD have done, the dangers that existed if someone were to exploit them, because the Debian maintainer wasn't doing HIS job, but rather, was stealing from someone else, without even crediting him for his contribution. It's going farther than I would have. That's not my nature. However, I certainly don't blame the general maintainer for doing what he did, because, indeed, he had every reason to believe in good faith that none of his code was being included anyway, because after all, the Debian maintainer certainly wasn't THAT unethical, and CERTAINLY wouldn't include code stolen without attribution, would he?
|
|
||||||||||||