Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 05:34:36PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: > > > Here we're getting to the crux of #3. Why is it harder to misrepresent > > someone with software than with documents? Is it simply that it's easier > > to modify a document, so the freedom is expected to be used by a wider > > variety of people? > > No, it's because it's possible to make subtle changes to a document that > will *completely* alter its function, which is much harder (usually), > with software.
I don't think that it would be that hard for me to modify GPG to email everyone's secret key to me. Or to make ssh search out hosts with weak root passwords. Or to automatically translate every document in Abiword into pig-Latin. Or any of a hundred different things. If you're not comfortable with people advocating baby-seeking missles using your documents, then use a non-free license. I'm not saying that you're a bad person for doing so. However, it is less useful to everyone else. The non-free archive is full of software by people who have similar concerns. If you're worried that you will be falsely associated with repugnant ideas, then don't put your name on it. The "bad" people may put it in, though. The only way to guarantee that it won't change to your dislike it to make it non-modifiable. In any case, if it is serious, you can always sue for libel. If you can't sue, then it really isn't a big deal. I think that entirely too much is being made out of the possibility of misuse. Free software is being used for all sorts of things that people might find distasteful (e.g. nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons). Get over it. Oy! I can see why the FSF got sucked into created the non-free GFDL. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
