On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 00:51:36 -0400 Richard wrote: > Let's not continue arguing about this, please. > There isn't a problem here we need to do anything about. > Let's not let it eat up our time.
i believe that you misunderstood the question - i have a habit of poorly choosing the thread subject - AFAIK, this question has never been discussed in this list; and i do not expect to be time consuming - i will not argue a single word, if you simply give your advice once this question is not about complex copyright or patent laws, nor any specific program - it is only about _your_ definition of freedom #1: the ability to inspect code before executing it the scenario is the binary equivalent of this program: while sleep 1 do curl authors.host/nonfree.sh | bash || exit done where: * the fetch URL is hard-coded into the binary * nonfree.sh is generated dynamically upon each request * executing the non-free code is not optional, but intrinsic to the program's operation although the released client is 100% free software, the behavior of the binaries are effectively non-free, because it is impossible for the user to inspect all of the code executing on the local machine - surely, this falls short of freedom #1 users of that binary are most likely to be unaware of this "trojan horse" or "back-door" feature; and regardless, they would need to modify the source code and re-compile, in order to inspect the incoming ephemeral code - even so, that ephemeral code is likely to be an opaque or obfuscated blob i think that the FSDG already requires such a feature to be optional (for example, by making the fetch URL to be user-configurable, and empty by default) - i am only asking for confirmation, of what seems to be a subtle, yet definite restriction of freedom #1, in the distributed binaries ie: shouldn't users expect that all executables, will _not_ necessarily execute non-free code?
