On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 01:00:14PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > I guess you did not read the referenced paper :)
Not this time, but have done before. > The whole point of that trojan was that it would be _invisible_ to anyone > who looks only at source code. It hides in the compiler executable, and > only activates if it notices that it's compiling another compiler. So not relevant to talking about changes to the source. > > Not true with a document, as > > documents' original purposes or results are less likely to be well-known or > > even well-defined. > > This holds true for editors as well as for readers. Sure does. > How is the later editor to know whether or not this is likely? > You assume that such an unfair representation is going to be deliberate. No, I'm just pointing out that it is possible. > I think it far more likely that it will be accidental; and in any case > someone who seeks to deliberately twist your words is not going to pay > much attention to your license. Maybe. > I think this boils down to a requirement for a stronger notification > than just "this document is derived from that document". Perhaps > add "... and is not necessarily a fair representation of the thoughts, > experiences, and conclusions of the original author"? Something like that, perhaps. > I personally think that goes without saying. Many intelligent people who read small print would go along with this. Most users aren't that kind of person. You can put a message saying "You screwed up. See http://you.are.a.loser for help" in an error message and you'll get loads of emails asking what the error means. So I don't think that much goes without saying, unfortunately. If it did, you could put a vague statement-of-intent instead of a license, and all would abide by it. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] You will wish you hadn't. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
