Talk:Distributed Consumerium: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Talk:Distributed Consumerium (edit)

Revision as of 01:28, 25 November 2003

1 byte removed , 25 November 2003

typo

Anonymous user

142.177.81.73

Revision as of 17:40, 22 November 2003 (edit) 142.177.103.86 (talk) No edit summary ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 01:28, 25 November 2003 (edit) (undo) 142.177.81.73 (talk) (typo)
Line 33:		Line 33:
	::The above is very good. We are now identifying some responsibilities that the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] might take, or might have to load in the [[Consumerium License]], and some [[software requirements]] like this 'shut down if they are doing things we dislike and not paying us enough to make up for it' [[lockout]]. Which means we must look at [[shareware license]] examples that 1. rely only on [[code-based enforcement]] 2. are popular anyway 3. are [[self-funding]]. Some [[Consortium license]] are also of this nature but without code enforcement or [[lockout]] since usually it's source that is being distributed and the lockout is easy to remove.		::The above is very good. We are now identifying some responsibilities that the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] might take, or might have to load in the [[Consumerium License]], and some [[software requirements]] like this 'shut down if they are doing things we dislike and not paying us enough to make up for it' [[lockout]]. Which means we must look at [[shareware license]] examples that 1. rely only on [[code-based enforcement]] 2. are popular anyway 3. are [[self-funding]]. Some [[Consortium license]] are also of this nature but without code enforcement or [[lockout]] since usually it's source that is being distributed and the lockout is easy to remove.

	::Of course there can be hacked versions of each bit of software without the [[lockout]], but, it's quite hard if there is authentication of each part of the network in the [[protocol requirements]], so that, you can't actually get a hacked module to cooperate with anything else. I can see this is a hot potato too, but, can't be avoided: there's no way that [[Gus ~~Kouwenhouven~~]] is going to just sit back and watch his "business" get trashed if he can pay a hacker a few hundred bucks and insert [[greenwash]] directly into the [[Consumerium buying signal]]s about his vile products.		::Of course there can be hacked versions of each bit of software without the [[lockout]], but, it's quite hard if there is authentication of each part of the network in the [[protocol requirements]], so that, you can't actually get a hacked module to cooperate with anything else. I can see this is a hot potato too, but, can't be avoided: there's no way that [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] is going to just sit back and watch his "business" get trashed if he can pay a hacker a few hundred bucks and insert [[greenwash]] directly into the [[Consumerium buying signal]]s about his vile products.