I realize not everyone will agree with me on this one, but here's more justification that liberty threatening software must be open source. People are winding up with felony convictions because poorly designed software is providing evidence against them in court.
This is a follow up to my earlier OnLamp blog entry on this topic.
Re:Define it...
Ovid on 2007-09-07T14:06:18
I'm really confused as to why people are misunderstanding this. By "open source" I mean "you're allowed to read the source code". I'm not confusing this with free software. I don't have a problem with companies selling their software or having a restrictive license, but if that software threatens my liberty or safety, I should at least have the right to make sure it's fair.
Re:Define it...
sigzero on 2007-09-07T14:11:31
I agree 100% with you then.
I think the "misunderstanding" might be that people who use the term "open source" do mean different things by it. Which is why I wanted a clarification of what "you" meant by it.
The question now is...can we get it into law? : )Re:Define it...
Ovid on 2007-09-07T14:25:46
Sorry if my reply sounded snarky
:) You're absolutely right that people sometimes widely expand what "open source" means. I keep forgetting that bit. Re:Define it...
sigzero on 2007-09-07T14:27:07
I have a "snarky" filter when I read stuff. : )
Re:Just to be crazy...
Ovid on 2007-09-08T06:44:29
I think that's a wonderful idea. But you're right, it's crazy
:) Still, I'd be excited as hell to see that happen.
