4 ms·

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 perso

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.

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.