> that the developer doesn’t harm someone themselves The harm in question is causing the backdoor to be inserted in the first place. Its irrelavent what else y

> that the developer doesn’t harm someone themselves The harm in question is causing the backdoor to be inserted in the first place. Its irrelavent what else you do, like selling it, although that could be a separate crime. > The point about MIT is that they are saying to the world when publishing “as is” folks. Not claiming I haven’t backdoored it for Uncle Sam.in fact I’m not claiming anything, use at your own risk. Just because you think that is what those words mean, doesn't mean that is what those words actually mean. > It used to be the law to implicitly do this by weak encryption for exports. Not comparable. Even now, the MIT license would probably protect you from any consequenes of using super weak encryption. It would not protect you from the hypothetical you setup. They are very different sutuations.