Linked by snydeq on Wed 1st Feb 2012 21:36 UTC
Permalink for comment 506433
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
There was no reason to throw in (to "zip" the argument / so it must have counterexample?) a bit silly "stating that source code is a precondition of freedom 1 (to inspect and study the program). I think this statetement is false, becase you can always reverse-engineer the binaries" (sure, you can do that, but what you can learn that way is... limited; in the same vein you can argue that strong DRM or obfuscation a'la Skype are not a problem, after all "you can always reverse-engineer"), your post was interesting enough without it.
BTW, one could easily argue that a major motivation behind availability of code (and the surrounding landscape of tools or "hacker culture") is, yes, educational in nature.
Edited 2012-02-09 00:06 UTC