4 ms·
a) I didn't read anything that suggested he was protesting the law. Perhaps you could point out that part of the story. b) He didn't release proprietary source
by petegrif 13y ago
a) I didn't read anything that suggested he was protesting the law. Perhaps you could point out that part of the story.
b) He didn't release proprietary source code. Or did I miss that part?
- ajarmst 13y ago(a)I was offering him the benefit of the doubt. You're correct. Other possibilities include that he's simply a criminal or merely dumb. (b) You did. Reread the third line of the post.
- TheZenPsycho 13y agoAre those really the only possibilities? Are you perhaps not really thinking very deeply about his possible motives?
- ajarmst 13y ago"Other possibilities include"
- vidarh 13y ago> (b) You did. Reread the third line of the post Which third line of the post is this? I don't see anything about him releasing the source. And if you read up on the case, you will find that what he actually did was to upload encrypted archives that he then downloaded from home. I don't believe there's any allegation that he publicly distributed any of this source.
- ajarmst 13y agoApologies. I thought you were objecting to "proprietary". I think we've just a semantic issue. How about "he knowingly caused proprietary source code to leave the control of its owner"? Although, as he did post to a public server, I think I can defend "released" if I need to. The word "encrypted" does not occur in the linked story, nor does it seem to be implied.