Oh I see.
OK == arbitrary private institutions with no representative or ideological
constraints other than the limit of the law. (And even then...)
Not OK == institutions that are (in theory at least) representative of
nations/countries/states and that are (in theory at least) accountable to
their people.
And of course;
- It's straightforward to ensure that there is no blur between those
categories.
- This categorisation is essential to the mission of any open source
crypto project.
- Supranational corporations are the only way to be sure that the
motives are altruistic and impartial.
- On the strict condition that such a private institution has no
dealings with the public sector, otherwise they're ipso facto subversive.
Is that what you're trying to say, more or less?
If so, I must have gotten lost somewhere along the way. Or perhaps you're
channeling Sarah Palin? Those seem like the sort of things she might say.
If you think there is no reasonable potential for political or nefarious
behaviour in the corporate culture then nothing I can say is likely to
change your mind. But you might want to read up a bit on Goldman Sachs (and
many others) before drawing too many favourable comparisons between them
and, say, elected bodies. (Though who am I to judge? If Goldman Sachs want
to contribute to open source too, they will get no argument from me.)
Thanks for making your opinion known, in any case.
Cheers,
Geoff
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Jakob Bohm <jb-open...@wisemo.com> wrote:
> On 5/30/2014 12:24 AM, Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> The only way to to avoid any political overtones in such a situation (if
>> that really is your intention, because "doing the right thing" is not an
>> apolitical notion) is to blindly accept all comers or refuse all comers.
>> (Subject to the obvious outliers, ie. nothing criminal/illegal, no
>> conflict of interest, etc.) By erecting criteria beyond "no strings
>> attached" (which *is* a very explicit necessary condition), you are in
>> fact condemning yourself to the problem you are chastising us for.
>>
>>
> I believe the additional criteria suggested would be "donor is not an
> aspect of any government, military or intelligence organization,
> anywhere". So for example DARPA, the USPS, the city of Munich and (a
> few years ago) Northern Rock Bank would all be out of the question,
> while IBM, Google, Samsung and Goldman Sachs would be OK.
>
> Any intermediary organization would need to do more than just launder
> the money. They would need to pool it with many other donations,
> distribute to many other projects and give the donors no influence on
> which projects benefit from their donations, thus obviously and
> provably denying the donors even the appearance of a potential ability
> to threaten to reward or punish a project via the purse strings.
>
>
> Enjoy
>
> Jakob
> --
> Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. http://www.wisemo.com
> Transformervej 29, 2730 Herlev, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10
> This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors.
> WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
> User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org
> Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
>
>
