> 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.
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.
The person in that thread could explain the situation a lot more better to the non technical users. You could do this:
"I don't know what happened to your computer but you seem to be saying someone hacked your computer and installed some software and you found acme.com mentioned on it. This was not done by me. acme.com is open source software that is freely available to anyone. This is the same as if someone installed software on your computer that mentions the google chrome web browser - that would not indicate google had anything to do with that action, since google chrome is freely available too."
This is why our temp files have names like malware_dropper.exe and bitcoin_scam.xls. If anyone sees those they assume it's some virus and don't bother us with them.
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.
i think this comment is referring to the uniquely american controversy over "gun free zones", ie zones where... you aren't allowed to carry firearms by law, often marked with a sign
which i find very entertaining, saying "a sign can't stop a criminal!" as if that's not the case with any law enforced via threat of criminal prosecution
I don't think I'd call it a controversy exactly. There are places where the signs make sense (ex court buildings) and then there are places where they are purely performative. When a school in the ghetto that suffers gang related violence prominently posts such signs they rightfully get made fun of. Meanwhile most schools (at least where I grew up) either don't bother to post such signs or only post a subdued "all weapons illegal" near the entrance (that includes even pocket knives BTW it's not just a gun thing).
Another great one is "drug free zone" seen plastered all over a seedy highschool. Drugs are blanket illegal everywhere here. The US has made an art form out of persecuting drug users. We've peddled our "war on drugs" globally. What could possibly be the point of posting such a sign?
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.