From: Sander Sweers <sander.sweers_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:58:48 +0200

On 23/06/06, Bluechip <csbluechip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > The code for this isn't yet released as a patch, I want to keep
> >> > looking at it a bit before releasing it.
> >>
> >>You realize the GPL forbids this, right?
> >
> >On top of that how would one know that it will not make the ipod go up
> >in flames the first time? Unless the code is released either as a
> >patch or the complete source i would not trust my ipod with it.
>
> I read a good rebuttal to this a long time ago.
> I present that rebutter here, not because it is necessarily my
> belief, but because I could never find anthing to say to it...
> People seem to trust "open source" but do you actually read AND
> understand all the open-source which you execute? ...if not, is your
> "it might contain malicious code" [where 'malicious' may validly be
> 'accidentally malicious'] a valid resoning. It seems that everybody
> relies on somebody else to 'protect' them.

True I can not but someone from the official dev team can (not
implying they should). They have standards on what they accept into
the offical tree and if it doesn not meet them it gets rejected. This
review process I trust in the same way as I trust the linux kernel.

>
> As I say, I'm not flaming, nor do I necessailry agree with the
> argument - but as it's come up - do you have a rebuttal to it which
> will fill a gap in my head [wise-cracks on a postcard ;)]
>

Not taken as a flame in any way.
Received on 2006-06-23