Quoting Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult (enrico.weig...@gr13.net): > >Have you written this up, somewhere? > > yet incomplete and hackish (due lack of time) > > https://github.com/orgs/Librezilla/
Thank you for working on that. I haven't taken the time to find the crux of your objection to the upstream code, though. > >>MSF has already made it perfectly clear they'll never accept any patches > >>for that and continue their path (already threatened me personally) > > > >And have you written up the details of this? > > Most of it should still be in their mail archives - and I could publish > the personal mails when applicable. (Which archives, BTW?) I didn't mean to suggest that I disbelieved you, only that oddly vague claims of 'threats' have a generally wretched history on the Internet. For starters, the author's notion of what qualifies as threatening and the reader's, and what rises to the level of being worthy of notice, tend to differ. This situation is worsened by many Internet denizens' (and many businesses') assumption that talk is cheap on the Internet, that they can get away with darkly hinting at harm of various sorts (semi-threatened litigation for business torts and libel, or alleged trademark violation, being the most common) without consequence. In my experience, the only way to restore accountability is to put the facts out in public without editorial commentary, including names and full texts. This has been my own policy: E.g., when Prof. Daniel J. Bernstein semi-threatened litigation because I dared to maintain a FAQ saying why I preferred not to use his software, I politely referred him to my attorney and then put the correspondence up on the Web for public amusement.[1] Later, when an officer of a LUG in Davis, California sent me an (it was later claimed) unauthorised lawsuit threat letter because I documented on my Web site abusive conduct by the then-listadmin, I published it plus my response letter.[2] And when one of my fellow Board members of my local sysadmin guild, BayLISA, bizarrely and in error claimed _I'd_ threatened litigation against BayLISA (my _own_ organisation), I published all of that, too.[3] Last, when the operator of standalone newsgroup threatened me with copyright litigation for Web-archiving public postings from the newsgroup, I Web-published that as an addition to my Web archive.[4] In each case, the supposed legal threat was obvious bullshit except of the type people feel free to hurl around because they might get their way if the recipient is timid and/or stupid, _and_ because they see no downside to trying. As I happen to have a reasonably high PageRanked Web site, as it turns out, there _is_ a downside to trying this dumb Internet trick on me -- and I don't take lawsuits lightly, having lived through my mother's suit against a Fortune 50 corporation (Boeing) over the wrongful death of my father, Pan Am Captain Arthur Moen. Even though we won, it was an ordeal, so I do not regard bogus legal threats as a matter to take lightly, but rather one to punish with sunlight. If the 'threat' you speak of was substantive _and unmerited_, then IMO you should do likewise. But you haven't said what this was, and, FWIW, I did spend a few minutes looking for it. [1] http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/dan-brandishing-legal-threats [2] http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/lugod.html [3] http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/litigious2.html [4] http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info2/astcomm.html _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng