Comment by jraph
12 hours ago
> If one did wish to use Singularity for nefarious purposes, however, the code is MIT licensed and freely available — using it in that way would only be a crime, not an instance of copyright infringement.
Too bad the author picked the MIT license. Had they picked (A)GPL, it would have forced the criminals to distribute a copy of LICENSE.TXT alongside their improved copy of the source code on systems they compromise. Failing this, using it in that way would be both a crime and an instance of copyright infringement.
Although, it occurs to me that if they don't give credits to the original author, it's also already a copyright infringement under the MIT.
If I might interject for a moment, you should've recommended the (A)GPLv3.
The anti-tivoization clause in Version 3 would allow users to modify and replace the rootkit with their own, more or less malicious version, even if it would otherwise violate copyright law.
> crime and an instance of copyright infringement.
Well-made distinction; +1.
It's nice until you get spammed with emails from angry users. I think it happened to the sqlite and other popular open source project authors. Non technical users think they are polluting their computer.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42358470
It happened to thttpd
https://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/repo.html
Thank you for the laugh!
It's probably an old joke, but heard it here first. LOL
I don't know about you, but for ethical reasons, I only allow libre rootkits to run on my systems.
It's just like a gun free zone. You glue a prominent sign to your laptop that uses bright colors and an imposing font. "No proprietary software permitted!" Problem solved.
2 replies →
Do you compile them yourself then? For possible arch specific optimizations
1 reply →
They checked with their lawyers first… lol.
Pretty sure all laws are null and void in their mind.
HAHAHAHAHAH I genuinely laughed a lot, thank you