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