> eye-opener (the full paper goes into more detail). My conclusion > after reading this (well before also actually, but it re-enforced the > view) is that the safest and simplest thing to do is to just publish > such software anonymously.
Again, motivation. The number of programmers that would publish a usable package which has not even theoretical means of being traced to them is very limited. Even signing it and keeping the key is a risk. Also, there is a question of quality. From what I've seen, best engineers work for shitloads of money. Open source stars are far from the best. Some are pretty shitty. And 100% anonymous ones are bound to be even worse. It takes a rather unique person to anonymously publish a good package that will make a difference and which any bozo could claim for himself. The fact that such even never happened supports this view. We are running against the basic law: nature abhors philanthropy. It will not happen. ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards. http://movies.yahoo.com/
