[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DotGNU]DCMA devils - not under the OSD.
From: |
John |
Subject: |
Re: [DotGNU]DCMA devils - not under the OSD. |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Jul 2001 14:19:47 -0500 |
Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
> > Encrypting our data stream or programs would run counter to a different
> > clause of the OSD dealing with obvuscation of property. If obscured, not
> > Open Source.
> >
>
> I think that, from the privacy perspective, most people wouldn't want
> their data open source in the first place.
I should have been clearer when I wrote the above. Of course we have to
encrypt the data, but we also publish the scheme of that data. "Keeping
the scheme unpublished would run counter to the OSD" would have been
closer to my intended warning.
I should have been clearer on the first iteration.
John
- [DotGNU]DCMA devils, Ron Burk, 2001/07/27
- Re: [DotGNU]DCMA devils, Jeremy Petzold, 2001/07/27
- Re: [DotGNU]DCMA devils, Barry Fitzgerald, 2001/07/27
- Re: [DotGNU]DCMA devils - not under the OSD., John, 2001/07/27
- Re: [DotGNU]DCMA devils - not under the OSD., Norbert Bollow, 2001/07/28
- Re: [DotGNU]DCMA devils - not under the OSD., Barry Fitzgerald, 2001/07/28
- [DotGNU]login service slamming, Ron Burk, 2001/07/28
- Re: [DotGNU]login service slamming, Barry Fitzgerald, 2001/07/29
- Re: [DotGNU]login service slamming, Jeremy Petzold, 2001/07/30
- Re: [DotGNU]login service slamming, Norbert Bollow, 2001/07/30
- Re: [DotGNU]login service slamming, Rich Hilliard, 2001/07/31
- [DotGNU]Encryption orthogonal to slamming, Ron Burk, 2001/07/31
- Re: [DotGNU]login service slamming, Rich Hilliard, 2001/07/31