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."
Compare the trojan to a weapon. It is the person that uses the weapon that does something illegal (or evil), regardless of whether the weaponed manufacturer had "evil intent. However regardless of whether the user or the manufacturer or both had "evil" intent the weapon is not "evil".
A trojan for example might be used to make havoc in the enemys computer system. This is an act of war and is neither illegal nor "evil".
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.
Well, if you are worried about the license of the C library that close to all Linux application links, you don't have to use it.
I think it is entirely reasonable if a find a bug in the C library and fix it that I publish the fix as thanks for having privilage of using it for free.
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.
And why should they do that?
And what is the analogy with either Nazi Germany or the GPL.
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.
Yes, but that have nothing to do with copyright or fair use for that matter.
If you get hold of some work in trust you must of course keep that trust, but this have nothing to do with copyright at all.
But claiming that some freely available work that I happend to download from site on the Internet that have a file with a license contains some obscure paragraph means that I have been entrusted that work is quite absurd and only in the US would a court even consider such absurd charges.
Same if I would have bought the work in a shop.
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.
I'm not particulary intrested. If you wish to invalidate the GPL fine, for me it is enough that Wine doesn't choose LGPL.
-
Patrik Stridvall