"Point is, as long as > the code is public and openly available, there is little to fear that > somehow the product would be a trap and insidiously have backdoors or sort.
Not true. Some of the Windows source is available. So is the source to the JDK. Both of these products still suck for the traditional closed source reasons." Dude, you're overgeneralising and making points that has little bearing on the issue discussed. I dunno about JDK, but windowscode is not public and openly available. In fact, you have to sign an agreement that you will shut up, before you can look at it, I think. If all points of OSS remains the same, exept for the provision not having the right to circumvent the encrytion, there are no other reasons why this would 'suck for the traditional closed source reasons', for the simple fact there are no tradistional closed source reasons present. Surely you must see it's a bit ridiculous to see it that black and white? I mean, what, as long as a prog follows exactly all points from begin to end in the definition of Open source intitiative thingy, it's good, but the moment it deviates in the slightest way it's all bad? If all things remain the same, exept for the DMCA protection of circumventing, then, *in this particular case*, it would be of considerable benefit, while no other major drawbacks would be there, because for the rest it stays the same as normal opensourced stuff. _______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
