[SGVLUG] Proprietary Binary Smackdown

[John E. Kreznar]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dustin Laurence <dustin at laurences.net> writes:

> ... but makes my life a lot simpler by not adding another thing.
> There wasn't enough interest for me to be willing to commit time to
> it anyway.

Another thing is that the subject matter is really more suited to
thoughtful written dialogue than to emotional verbal dialogue anyway.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it from earlier postings
in this thread the issue is whether to smile on including proprietary
binaries in Linux installations.

I used to pretty much ignore the distinction between "free" and "open
source", considering it to generate more heat than light.  But this
issue really highlights the difference.

Why does one favor free or open source?  There are several answers.
Some, no doubt, like it because it's free as in beer.  Others want the
freedom to read and modify the source to correct errors or modify
functionality.  For these purposes, either "free" or "open source" is
fine, at least if redistribution is not in the picture.

But for some of us, the number one reason for free or open source is
for the freedom to study and comprehend the software running on the
machines on our desks.  My chief gripe with the proprietary vendors is
their arrogance to expect me to accept into my life a black box that
sometimes does fascinating things, but only on condition that I
promise to never open the box and look inside.

Of course, technically one can look inside even a "proprietary binary"
using tools such as disassemblers and debuggers.  But often such
binaries can only be used on condition of "no reverse engineering" --
in other words, no reading, or at least no reading with comprehension.

Gets me emotional just writing about it.  In a verbal situation, I
would lose my cool entirely.


- -- 
 John E. Kreznar jek at ininx.com 9F1148454619A5F08550 705961A47CC541AFEF13
  "[What open source is actually achieving is to reduce] the ability of
   proprietary companies to collect secrecy rent."  -- Eric S. Raymond

 To "reverse engineer" something is to come to comprehend it, so what a
EULA really does is to forbid comprehension.  For this they charge money?!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFE/PpHYaR8xUGv7xMRAlMDAJ0S1cbBaqc28lkLpidkrnMdZPvFhQCdEnXH
tIM+0obsm/DKj9anGh6efTE=
=yBlD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----