When Microsoft introduces its long-awaited Windows Vista operating system this month, it will have an unlikely partner to thank for making its flagship product safe and secure for millions of computer users across the world: the National Security Agency. For the first time, the giant software maker is acknowledging the help of the secretive agency, better known for eavesdropping on foreign officials and, more recently, U.S. citizens as part of the Bush administration's effort to combat terrorism. The agency said it has helped in the development of the security of Microsoft's new operating system to protect it from worms, Trojan horses and other insidious computer attackers.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-02
Do you really think someone with such malicious intent is really concerned with their rep with the people they intend to attack?
I don't think you understand how open source works. Contributions are not unanimous. The backdoor could make the programmer the target of legal action. In the case of the NSA (which is what we're talking about here), imagine the PR disaster this would create.
The GPL is controlled freedom, i.e., you're free to pick among the choices they provide you but never step outside of the box.
Not at all. The GPL is an extension of copyright. If you don't like the GPL, then you must hate proprietary software, because it gives you *less* rights than the GPL.
Do you believe it's impossible to disagree with him?
Of course not. I don't agree with him on all points. I actually produce proprietary software for a living. That doesn't mean I can't agree with some of what he says, or that I should just dismiss everything he writes, like you do.
That's not true freedom as they proclaim it to be. BTW, you must've missed their anti-Vista campaign.
Again, you're being disingenuous. It's perfectly fine to advocate *against* a particular software. There's no coercion involved. You're free to use it - they just want to tell you why they think you shouldn't. Are you against freedom of expression when it goes against your beloved Microsoft?
And you're cheerleading for those who would seek to bring all software development under their control whether or not users and developers actually want to be.
Again with the strawman arguments, n4cer? They do not "seek to bring all software development under their control". That's ridiculous. They have never claimed that. Stop spreading FUD, you're *really* starting to sound like a MS shill.
Under your definition of Fair Use, I'd be able to take some GPL code and proprietarize it just because I felt like it.
Do you even have an idea of what Fair Use means? Hint: it doesn't allow redistribution.
You're free to use GPL software, modify it and not release the changes - as long as you don't redistribute it. This is no different.
Learn a thing or two about copyright law without even trying to criticize the GPL, because all you're doing right now is revealing your ignorance.
Member since:2005-07-06
I don't think you understand how open source works. Contributions are not unanimous. The backdoor could make the programmer the target of legal action. In the case of the NSA (which is what we're talking about here), imagine the PR disaster this would create.
Sorry, but I think that PR disaster pales in comparison to, "hey we're spying on our own citizens without warrants and were about 1 phone network away from total penetration (dang that Qwest)".
Not at all. The GPL is an extension of copyright. If you don't like the GPL, then you must hate proprietary software, because it gives you *less* rights than the GPL.
Proprietary software doesn't whine about me having open and proprietary software on the same system, or dictate that I can't use content protections w/o handing everyone my keys.
Again, you're being disingenuous. It's perfectly fine to advocate *against* a particular software. There's no coercion involved. You're free to use it - they just want to tell you why they think you shouldn't. Are you against freedom of expression when it goes against your beloved Microsoft?
Sure, no coercion, except coercing governments into mandating technologies whether or not they are sufficient replacements for the technologies currently in use. Or spreading lies about MS products and silencing those who call them on it. If they really have no problem with freedom, why are they afraid to let valid, critical comments stand on their site without scrubbing them? Are you against freedom of expression when it goes against your beloved FSF?
Again with the strawman arguments, n4cer? They do not "seek to bring all software development under their control". That's ridiculous. They have never claimed that. Stop spreading FUD, you're *really* starting to sound like a MS shill.
And you're sounding like an FSF shill. If they really had no problem with proprietary software, they wouldn't be trying to push proprietary developers away from Linux. They aren't accepting different business models. They're trying to force their own.
You're free to use GPL software, modify it and not release the changes - as long as you don't redistribute it. This is no different.
And that's a limit on and a redefinition of freedom.
Learn a thing or two about copyright law without even trying to criticize the GPL, because all you're doing right now is revealing your ignorance.
Yes. All hail mighty GPL, spreading "freedom" like GWB. I choose not to be controlled by your notion of "freedom". It's as simple as that. I use what I want and don't let religion determine my choices.
Member since:2005-11-11
//The GPL is controlled freedom, i.e., you're free to pick among the choices they provide you but never step outside of the box.//
No. As an end user you can use free software distributed under the GPL in any way that you want, including mixing it with software that is not distributed under the GPL.
You are dead wrong on this point.
//You could use what you want in the way they want you to use it. That's not true freedom as they proclaim it to be.//
No, you are wrong about that. Dead wrong. Under the GPL, as an end user you are given explicit permission to use the software in any way that you want to.
//BTW, you must've missed their anti-Vista campaign. If they really had no problem w/ proprietary software, they'd be content to just promote their wares. //
The anti-Vista campaign is advocacy. They are advocating that you don't use Vista, and they give reasons why they advocate that.
This has absolutely nothing to do with telling you what you may or may not use.
//And you're cheerleading for those who would seek to bring all software development under their control whether or not users and developers actually want to be. //
WTF? How do you figure? You really have got the wrong end of the stick there.
//Under your definition of Fair Use, I'd be able to take some GPL code and proprietarize it just because I felt like it.//
That is not "use". "Using" the software is running it. The activity you describe is redistribution for profit. You are given permission to use their software as provided, to study it, and even to modify it for your own use in any way that you please.
The one and only thing they do not give you permission to do under the GPL with their software is to modify it and sell it to someone else ... that is, you do not have permission to redistribute their software for your profit. If you want to do that, you may ... but you must first negotiate with the owners of the software (the authors and copyright holders) to release it to you under a different license (other than the GPL). That will cost you some money.
Some owners and authors may not agree to do this type of re-licensing deal with you, as is their right.
Edited 2007-01-10 08:28
Member since:
2005-07-06
However, the risk of getting caught (and therefore losing all credibility as a programmer for open-source projects) will discourage most from trying.
Do you really think someone with such malicious intent is really concerned with their rep with the people they intend to attack?
So if you're pro-end user, you subscribe to the RMS/FSF creed? ("Skreed" is not a real word, btw.) Or do you think that it is impossible for RMS to make a good point?
I don't think he's incapable of making a good point. I just disagree with a lot of his rhetoric. The GPL is controlled freedom, i.e., you're free to pick among the choices they provide you but never step outside of the box. Do you believe it's impossible to disagree with him?
No, you don't. The FSF has never advocated outlawing closed-source software, so even they "had their way" you could still use whatever you wanted. Using strawmen arguments such as these completely ruins your credibility.
You could use what you want in the way they want you to use it. That's not true freedom as they proclaim it to be. BTW, you must've missed their anti-Vista campaign. If they really had no problem w/ proprietary software, they'd be content to just promote their wares.
They already have their way, which is to try to convince people to use FOSS for its merits, both technical and philosophical.
And FUD-filled. I guess that falls under philosophical. ;-)
Now, if MS and Hollywood had *their* way, however, FOSS would be illegal. Yup, n4cer, in case you hadn't noticed, you're cheerleading for those who seek to prevent what people can do with the equipment that is theirs, and who wish to curtail their Fair Use rights.
And you're cheerleading for those who would seek to bring all software development under their control whether or not users and developers actually want to be. Under your definition of Fair Use, I'd be able to take some GPL code and proprietarize it just because I felt like it.