4 ms·

Four things: 1) Why they changed the code all of the sudden? If they are fine with realeasing this kind of damaging payoad, then why they decided to change the

Four things: 1) Why they changed the code all of the sudden? If they are fine with realeasing this kind of damaging payoad, then why they decided to change the code? I mean they want to make a statement, right? Then they should leave the original code and stand by it. Why they are not standing by their statement? 2) Why RIAEvangelist editing people comments to minimize their languages? why they are censoring their comments? I checked the edited button and you can see RIAEvangelist made some interesting changes on their comments. 3) If RIAEvangelist felt his protest should be public and known, but users can't? You can clearly see they are trying to censoring comments and users at the beginning. So odd for developer who want to protest but yet refused to allow users to voice their protest. Strange strange mentality. 4) That is their free speech but that is only free speech from the governments. I realize my comment indicate about legal ramification. It is not the governments that RIAEvangelist should worry about, it is the private companies they should worry about, espically the platform they are using are known to be extremely litigious. They have far more power and money to ensure their maximum punishment. Private companies will use the law and lead hard on the government to do something. Private companies have done it before and they will do it again. I don't have a issue with their principle. It just it is not the right platform/soapbox to use because it can cause unexpected damage if the original code is left up. It could spill to over companies who would be unintentionally targeted by it. Software is never perfect and it can be ugly. The developer have the right mind to change the code to minimize the damage because it will be ugly for them if they leave it up.

ctvo 5y ago
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  Little text to say that you support the malicious actions and hope that nothing is done.
  - bobobob420 5y ago
    That is not the position ctvo is making at all. He never said he was in support of malware. He is stating that there should be no legal ramifications. The person who added the malware is definitely a piece of shit but i also agree he should not face legal ramifications. This is his code and he is allowed to do with it whatever he wants. It is the consumer to safe guard against external code. Legal ramifications would cause a legal precedent to be set for open source code and ownership that is a very dangerous path. I understand the anger and frustration, i feel it too. However it is still his code
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      I too would normally agree if the software wasn't actually malicious this time. It is one thing to create an infinite loop in a package that can simply be terminated, but a whole other can of worms to actually start removing users files. I generally agree with what you are saying that open source developers don't owe anyone anything, but there is a line, otherwise think about the precedent it sets when open source dies out because businesses and government stop using open source because of hostile takeovers by other nations who then use popular open source projects to spread malware. People cheering this would be devastated if this happened to them, but by cheering that is what they are advocating for. Nothing is black and white, I think there should be some flexibility because afterall it is open source, however intentionally deleting user files or installing spyware is where I draw the line. If you want to break your own software, then fine, but don't go breaking other peoples software intentionally and deleting files when that is not what your software was designed to do and you've gave no warning or indication to other users that you plan to change it.
      - ctvo 5y ago
        The original statement was that this person isn't likely to face legal recourse. The comment I was replying to was very lengthy, but never addressed that statement or made a LEGAL argument that this person would face legal recourse, hence my reply.

ctvo 5y ago

encryptluks2 5y ago
Little text to say that you support the malicious actions and hope that nothing is done.
- bobobob420 5y ago
  That is not the position ctvo is making at all. He never said he was in support of malware. He is stating that there should be no legal ramifications. The person who added the malware is definitely a piece of shit but i also agree he should not face legal ramifications. This is his code and he is allowed to do with it whatever he wants. It is the consumer to safe guard against external code. Legal ramifications would cause a legal precedent to be set for open source code and ownership that is a very dangerous path. I understand the anger and frustration, i feel it too. However it is still his code
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    I too would normally agree if the software wasn't actually malicious this time. It is one thing to create an infinite loop in a package that can simply be terminated, but a whole other can of worms to actually start removing users files. I generally agree with what you are saying that open source developers don't owe anyone anything, but there is a line, otherwise think about the precedent it sets when open source dies out because businesses and government stop using open source because of hostile takeovers by other nations who then use popular open source projects to spread malware. People cheering this would be devastated if this happened to them, but by cheering that is what they are advocating for. Nothing is black and white, I think there should be some flexibility because afterall it is open source, however intentionally deleting user files or installing spyware is where I draw the line. If you want to break your own software, then fine, but don't go breaking other peoples software intentionally and deleting files when that is not what your software was designed to do and you've gave no warning or indication to other users that you plan to change it.
    - ctvo 5y ago
      The original statement was that this person isn't likely to face legal recourse. The comment I was replying to was very lengthy, but never addressed that statement or made a LEGAL argument that this person would face legal recourse, hence my reply.