[SC.LUG] I'd Prefer Comments From Actual Trebus Users

[Gareth Bowker]

On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 11:11:48PM -0000, Frank Mitchell wrote:
> 
> Reviewing the fuss at NWLUG, I don't see the reason for it now. Anybody can
> download free Linux Anti-Virus Software and give Trebus a scan. If he was
> suspicious, Andrew Hutchings could have done this for them, though he said
> he didn't have the time. Unless I've invented a new Linux Virus as well as a
> new Linux CD Archiver, what's the problem? I understand it looked suspicious
> when I talked about running Trebus as root, even on an old machine, and I'll
> give more attention to Users and Groups next time. But clearly some people
> would have complained anyway.

If I sent you a program claiming to do some fantastic whizz-bang new
thing at twice the speed of anything else out there, but sent it to you
unsolicited and without source, would you run it? If yes, then I'm
guessing you've probably fallen afoul of several viruses already if
you're running Windows anywhere. Running untrusted unverified code which
has been sent to you anonymously is the reason my email inbox keeps
getting flooded with crappy windows executables claiming to be pictures
of god-knows-who, or a zip file containing, well, who knows what.

Also, by password-protecting the zip file, it meant that automated virus
scanners, such as the ones that many people have running on mail
servers, are unable to scan the file. This would raise many suspicions
too.

> [...] I regard the whole Reusable Code
> doctrine as a fallacy. In the time you take to figure out which bits are
> relevant and how to adapt them, you could write your own original code which
> works alot better for your needs, probably with less effort.

I don't even know where to begin to respond to this. Have you *ever*
worked on a software project involving more people than just yourself?

> Meanwhile some people are trying to encourage the development of Proprietary
> Linux Software. The main obstacle is that firms assume they're being asked
> to reveal their Source Code. Furthermore this whole issue was dealt with way
> back in the  LGPL, which says I can reveal my Object Files rather than my
> Source Code. FSF can then examine these with a Hex Editor and see whether
> I'm infringing their Library Licenses. In fact LGPL seems devoted to
> encouraging people like me to do what I'm attempting with my LUGware
> License, while leaving my Source Code out of the picture.

I suggest you read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html to
get a better understanding of the purpose of the LGPL. It's not quite as
you interpreted it.

Cheers,

Gareth
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sc/attachments/20051226/ba66ec73/attachment.bin