On Apr 21, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
<snip>
Here we go again, you are introducing something irrelevant to try
and justify your actions. Yes, I know what the licence says - but
that merely says I cannot expect support from you, and I can't
complain if it doesn't work. That still does not mean I am giving
you permission to enter my property and make changes - it just means
that you are under no obligation to provide support or updates.
That's the whole point - I'm NOT complaining that your aren't
providing support, and I'm not claiming damages. I'm complaining
because you have gone well beyond "not providing support" by
actively disabling a program that you deemed I shouldn't be running
according to your view of how the computing world should run.
Nothing in that licence or any implied agreement for you to update
my server allows for that - and under UK law what you did was
illegal (and under US law if what I understand of the Gary McKinnon
case is right).
Well you obviously do not understand the Gary McKinnon case right. Not
a single person connected in any way or form "reached out and touched
any system". All affected systems, made a connection to a ClamAV
mirror somewhere in the world and downloaded a database of signatures.
Clamd by its very design in effect since before version 0.94 did
exactly what it was supposed to do which is shut down in the event of
a database it could not digest.
In the Gary McKinnon case, he actively sought out these computers he
is charged with allegedly hacking into, and rifled through through the
computer contents. I do not see any remote connection between this and
what ClamAV has done.
<snip>
--
Simon Hobson
Jim
_______________________________________________
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
