3 ms·
I used to work for a company that used to classify software as malware. The original definition is much closer to what is broadly accepted (at least by antivir
by jnwatson 6y ago
I used to work for a company that used to classify software as malware. The original definition is much closer to what is broadly accepted (at least by antivirus vendors). Much of what is classified as malware doesn't exploit anything other than the user's expectations.
The definition of malware is social construct, not a technical one, otherwise Powershell.exe would light up like a Christmas tree.
The only reasonable way to talk about malware is with respect to users' wishes and desires.
I'll note that AV vendors invented a "less bad" label, PUP, for less-destructive malware. That doesn't make it not malware though.
- umvi 6y agoOk, fair point, then maybe we ought to be quibbling over the semantics of "mistreat" then. IMO making software not work if the user doesn't pay isn't mistreating the user. GNU disagrees and thinks anything short of 100% optional/unenforced payment is mistreating the user.
- ethanwillis 6y agoThis is not true. If you are never provided with the software then GNU wouldn't say you can access the source code. So if someone says "I won't give you X software unless you pay Y dollars" that is fine However if they do pay the expectation is they also get access to the source code if they're running the software on their own machine (depending on which license we're talking about of course)
- umvi 6y ago> So if someone says "I won't give you X software unless you pay Y dollars" that is fine How can you say that though if someone can just get a copy from a peer without paying you? People just go around the paywall and grab a free copy without payment which is why DRM exists at all. So then I make it so the software has to connect to a server to check if you've paid for it, and now suddenly that's mistreating the user?
- ethanwillis 6y agoHaving software connect to a server to check if you've paid for it is still allowed. You just have to provide source code. However, you don't have to provide the source code for the software running on the remote server.
- ethanwillis 6y agoIn either case this is all a moot point because you don't have to go full GNU to provide source code to paying customers. This still happens in some enterprise situations with contracts in place to assign legal liability for sharing the code for free to other people while still respecting the freedom of the software users to have access to the source code.
- DougN7 6y agoOf all the possible things that might be expected, why is a copy of the source code the thing that stands out. If it’s on my machine why shouldn’t I expect excellent documentation, or configuration support, or build help, or features as I request them? What makes the source code and only the source code the exact thing I should expect?