Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] TrueCrypt Alternatives?

Yosem Companys companys at stanford.edu
Sun Oct 5 15:48:25 PDT 2014


This is not directed to anyone in particular. But, come on, everyone, let's
have a respectful and constructive conversation. There's no need to get
snippy.

Thanks,

Yosem
One of the moderators

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Greg <greg at kinostudios.com> wrote:

> Dear Rich,
>
> On Oct 4, 2014, at 3:50 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote:
>
> I'm not misunderstanding it.  I didn't bother to read it
>
>
> Those two statements seem to be in conflict to me, as you are next making
> assumptions about what sorts of limits it puts on peer review. You use the
> words "legally constrain the reviewers" but neglect to mention how or why.
> That is not unimportant. It would be like me saying that "America is
> legally constraining me" but neglecting to mention that they are legally
> constraining me from running somebody over with a car.
>
> In or out of the pool.  You wanna be closed source?  Go for it.  But
> please,
> stop disengenously pretending to be open source when you're clearly not.
>
>
> So far the only disingenuous language has been coming from you.
>
> We have been explicit in stating that we are not open source [1,2], and
> yet you are accusing us of doing so.
>
> That is libel and/or slander.
>
> Please stop.
>
> Kind regards,
> Greg Slepak
>
>
> [1]
> https://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2013/09/espionage-3-now-open-source-for-professionals/
> (we preserved the URL to prevent broken internet links, but changed the
> title and added edits in bold)
> [2] https://www.espionageapp.com (read the section on "source code
> available")
>
> --
> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with
> the NSA.
>
>
> This is dragging out, so I'm going to try to be brief.
>
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 06:07:36PM -0700, Greg wrote:
>
> You may also be misunderstanding our NDA.
>
>
> I'm not misunderstanding it.  I didn't bother to read it, because the
> mere fact that it exists is the problem.  People who are serious about
> open source and peer review of code do not limit peer review, nor attempt
> to legally constrain the reviewers, nor try to cherry-pick the reviewers
> based on perceived expertise or personal qualities.
>
> In or out of the pool.  You wanna be closed source?  Go for it.  But
> please,
> stop disengenously pretending to be open source when you're clearly not.
>
> ---rsk
>
> p.s.  In re: "[...] we want to do our best to keep the software in the
> hands of honest, trustworthy folks [...]" -- you've got to be kidding.
> I *hope* you're kidding.
> --
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations
> of list guidelines will get you moderated:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech.
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
> companys at stanford.edu.
>
>
>
> --
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations
> of list guidelines will get you moderated:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech.
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
> companys at stanford.edu.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20141005/70fcdea4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the liberationtech mailing list