Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The FBI Paid OpenBSD Developers For Backdoors?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    @crazycheese
    Your epilogue rocks

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
      Some people believe the September 11, 2001 U.S. Government attacks were perpetrated by Al Queda: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
      I fixed the obvious.
      See:
      http://www.infowars.com/saved%20page...on%20Times.htm

      http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+...security+chief

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
        First, I don't see microsoft firing anyone for writing software with vulnerabilities. Take opentype vulnerability on ms for example - nearly 10 years. And tracking him down is also nearly impossible unless they keep 10 year old comments and unmodified code revisions.

        Second, tracking down is unimportant. We are talking about writing software, not doing bank robbery. The only thing that plays a role is how secure and verifiable the code is and stays.
        I thought we were talking about the FBI "encouraging" a developer to introduce backdoors to the software he/she is working on.

        I do not think any company would want such programmers in its ranks.

        And the last thing is that proprietary code is NOT your code.
        You may take it as it is, or leave it.
        You dont buy it, you license the right to use it under specific conditions.
        There is no guarantees, no source, no promises.
        "But we do gladly accept money."
        Off-topic, but OSS works *exactly* the same way. You, the user, don't own the copyright (i.e. it's not your code) and the code is provided "as-is", "without any warranties" or promises (see GPLv3 section #15). Plus donations tend to be gladly accepted.

        At least that's how every OSS project I've ever seen works.

        Comment


        • #64
          Open source is "trust, but verify". Closed source is "trust, but vilify". Note that the latter implies failure.

          Comment


          • #65
            Ahh yes, it is on the internets, so it must be true... So, want to buy a bridge? It's in good condition, I swear.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
              I thought we were talking about the FBI "encouraging" a developer to introduce backdoors to the software he/she is working on.

              I do not think any company would want such programmers in its ranks.
              Of course they would. They have no choice otherwise - either this or company/CEO/<put any protestor name here> is a history.

              They would gladly add holes for free and obfuscate it near possible limit.

              Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
              Off-topic, but OSS works *exactly* the same way. You, the user, don't own the copyright (i.e. it's not your code) and the code is provided "as-is", "without any warranties" or promises (see GPLv3 section #15).
              Nope. Copyright is not a right to own, but a right to call yourself an author of the work. Everything else is written in license, which, the author of work applies to his work.

              If I create DoooooM5 and put (c) Crazycheese everywhere that wont prevent anyone do anything to the code, incl. removing my authorship away since no license equals public domain. Only once I assign a license to the work stuff changes.

              For example "(c) Crazycheese. This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

              So, back to the topic, if the program is licensed via opensource license, I, user have full 4 rights on it, except I'm not the author of it. I can claim I own the software, make any amount of copies, modify it - in any part, debug it as many times as I wish etc. But I may not, and this is the sense of opensource, prevent others from accessing my modification. At least, unless I put my modifications into proprietary license and this is technically possible and the base work license allows this. Such as BSD. This is why BSD feeds proprietary.

              Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
              Plus donations tend to be gladly accepted.

              At least that's how every OSS project I've ever seen works.
              Why, spare money helps always Especially when it is made with least effort possible - I just make a copy for 0.000001$ actual cost and request 1000000$ for legal fee. See patent traps, selling licenses, royalties.

              I personally don't see OSS project ever possible on donations. Donations, whilst sometimes bringing much more money than arranged price, are in rest cases variable in amount, situation etc. I dont expect facebook to work on donations btw(wikipedia however does, but its more exception).

              And I do love people working professionally full-time instead of hungry student overnight. I think the real difference between proprietary and opensource work is that proprietary is de facto slavery and selling of product(result); where opensource is decentralization and selling of skills(work). Opensource won't work on non-information(and it makes no sense).

              If I hire a hacker(s) writing opensource driver code - their result is needed by me(or/and a group of interested), but can also be shared and build-upon(and returning) by others.

              On the contrast, if I hire a mechanic to tune my car - he can physically tune only my car. Make as much photos of it as needed, those photos wont auto-magically tune others cars, just by touch. Ain't information.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                Ahh yes, it is on the internets, so it must be true... So, want to buy a bridge? It's in good condition, I swear.
                My brain is not on internets, so, beside 1 and 0, it has a possiblity to hold both "0.5" state, as well as "?" state.
                And to the links I posted, I evaluate them as "?" and as "0.5" at same time. Life ain't as simple as 1 or 0, you know. Abstracting and simplifying Taijitu did not make past-analog machines smarter, only made them more a-warfire and noise resistant.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                  Of course they would. They have no choice otherwise - either this or company/CEO/<put any protestor name here> is a history.

                  They would gladly add holes for free and obfuscate it near possible limit.
                  Bullshit.
                  How could a government change a CEO? Show me some examples ...


                  Nope. Copyright is not a right to own, but a right to call yourself an author of the work. Everything else is written in license, which, the author of work applies to his work.

                  If I create DoooooM5 and put (c) Crazycheese everywhere that wont prevent anyone do anything to the code, incl. removing my authorship away since no license equals public domain. Only once I assign a license to the work stuff changes.
                  Bullshit. I don't need to add a "(c) mat69".

                  I created it and that makes me the copyright holder and you have no right at all. For everything you have to contact me.
                  As getting thousands e-mails with the same message would suck I can grant rights.
                  Whoever I grant those rights is up to me.

                  In fact that depends on the legislation of the country you publish your work. Here it is the way I outlined, same in Germany. So keep in mind that there are more legislations around the world ...

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by mat69 View Post
                    Bullshit.
                    How could a government change a CEO? Show me some examples ...




                    Bullshit. I don't need to add a "(c) mat69".

                    I created it and that makes me the copyright holder and you have no right at all. For everything you have to contact me.
                    As getting thousands e-mails with the same message would suck I can grant rights.
                    Whoever I grant those rights is up to me.

                    In fact that depends on the legislation of the country you publish your work. Here it is the way I outlined, same in Germany. So keep in mind that there are more legislations around the world ...
                    Today I read that in Norway you're always allowed to do some stuff with the copy that you "legitimately obtained". You may use the software for its original purpose, or reverse engineer it for personal study... stuff like that. Seems like a sane thing: copyright should really only cover distribution. What you do with it personally should be of no concern to the author.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                      Nope. Copyright is not a right to own, but a right to call yourself an author of the work. Everything else is written in license, which, the author of work applies to his work.

                      If I create DoooooM5 and put (c) Crazycheese everywhere that wont prevent anyone do anything to the code, incl. removing my authorship away since no license equals public domain. Only once I assign a license to the work stuff changes.
                      You got it completely backwards.

                      As soon as you create something, you have the copyright over it, and are the ONLY person who is allowed to distribute it. This changes if you produce it as work for hire, obviously, then your employer has the copyright instead of you.

                      In most countries, you don't even need to put the (c) anywhere. Copyright is automatic.

                      The purpose of a license is to ALLOW other people to do things with the software. By default, they are not allowed to do anything, other than the default allowances by the law.

                      You have to specifically (and explicitly) release things into the public domain, if this is what you wish.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                        You have to specifically (and explicitly) release things into the public domain, if this is what you wish.
                        Plus, in some countries you can't put something in the public domain. Only old stuff (X years after the author dies/is murdered) is in the public domain. The CC "public domain" license solves this problem.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by mat69 View Post
                          Bullshit.
                          How could a government change a CEO? Show me some examples ...
                          How about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
                          This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security
                          And this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army


                          Originally posted by mat69 View Post
                          Bullshit. I don't need to add a "(c) mat69".

                          I created it and that makes me the copyright holder and you have no right at all. For everything you have to contact me.
                          As getting thousands e-mails with the same message would suck I can grant rights.
                          Whoever I grant those rights is up to me.

                          In fact that depends on the legislation of the country you publish your work. Here it is the way I outlined, same in Germany. So keep in mind that there are more legislations around the world ...
                          Be my guest, don't add it. How can I ever contact you if I don't even know your name and no mentioning of the authorship

                          (c) Anonymous
                          -or-
                          about.txt: Matt69 /me: whaat?
                          right

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Remco View Post
                            Plus, in some countries you can't put something in the public domain. Only old stuff (X years after the author dies/is murdered) is in the public domain. The CC "public domain" license solves this problem.
                            Unless someone has living relatives that are kind enough to attach all rights by X to some smart Holdings Co. or even better - Old Stuff Copyright Association (OSCA). You can wait zillion years, for them to die.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                              Be my guest, don't add it. How can I ever contact you if I don't even know your name and no mentioning of the authorship
                              That sucks for you, but not for him.
                              Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                              Unless someone has living relatives that are kind enough to attach all rights by X to some smart Holdings Co. or even better - Old Stuff Copyright Association (OSCA). You can wait zillion years, for them to die.
                              If you can kill an author, you can also kill all his relatives.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                                You got it completely backwards.

                                As soon as you create something, you have the copyright over it, and are the ONLY person who is allowed to distribute it. This changes if you produce it as work for hire, obviously, then your employer has the copyright instead of you.

                                In most countries, you don't even need to put the (c) anywhere. Copyright is automatic.

                                The purpose of a license is to ALLOW other people to do things with the software. By default, they are not allowed to do anything, other than the default allowances by the law.

                                You have to specifically (and explicitly) release things into the public domain, if this is what you wish.
                                I guess I'm from the country, where, unless you put your name and mention youre the author by putting the (c) sign next to your ID, your aren't so; and unless you specify the terms of distribution, you only claim your are the author; ie author->>>(c) name->>>JohnDoe, all rights reserved<<<- proprietary, I specify rights(reserve em to me).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X