4 ms·
> much less actually endorse the software they’re paid to review > It’s a massive conflict of interest They weren't paid. There's no conflict of interest, at
by sdfghswe 4y ago
> much less actually endorse the software they’re paid to review
> It’s a massive conflict of interest
They weren't paid.
There's no conflict of interest, at least not a commercial one.
- woodruffw 4y agoThat’s important information, and should be included in a public announcement of an audit! Even still: pro bono audits carry reputational value, meaning that there’s no way to fully discharge the conflict of interest here. The only correct way to do it is to refuse to endorse the software you audit; an audit that enthusiastically recommends the software it covers sets off red flags. Edit: I misread the post, which does explicitly state that the audit was conducted for free.
- politelemon 4y agoIt is in the first paragraph
- woodruffw 4y agoYou’re right, sorry — I missed that. I’m going to edit my comment with an explicit correction. The second point still stands.
- abdullahkhalids 4y agoThe review file does * ask for donations to the author, and * provides contact details of the author, in case someone wants to hire them to review their software. We can debate whether these constitute conflict of interest.