Re: posible bug in daemontools

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Mark Johnson wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Chris Pugh <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > They are in the 'Public Domain'.  That covers a wide area.  Being in
> > the Public Domain could even be considered a form of Licensing!
> 
> How else would you suggest I state the copyright status and
> redistribution terms?

Well, that's a good one: You claim credibility and association with
blackhats is off-topic, but the legal status of your distribution is
on-topic.  Sounds just like a blackhat...

But, in fact, license is a sort of contract, governed by contract law.  
Using fake identities in contract has been determined to be fraudulent.
In in this case, you appear to be making an effort to be untraceable to
avoid legal accountability; you can't licence anything, nor can anyone
rely on any license from you, or that you have license to use what you
are distributing.  Whatever you state is unreliable; No one can bring
you into court for testimony.

> > Maybe just a tad more respect is due then, for the guy who wrote the
> > original, and gave you the materail to fork with ( feel free to
> > morph the penultimate word! )? ;o)
> 
> How, exactly, have I been disrespectful?

Well, for one, by distributing software anonymously, not telling us who
you really are, and not properly registering your business. Are you
doing that to evade the law?

For two, it sounds like you aren't giving proper credit to the authors.



Here's something to make this interesting to those who have wasted their
time on this frivolous matter: the Madoff programmers (in jail since
December) were indicted yesterday, according to the NYTimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/business/18madoff.html

Pushing the keys, programming for fraud makes one part of the fraud. 
That should give some people pause. Probably won't, but should.

		--Dean


-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 256 5494