On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, Marcus J. Ranum wrote: > > >Because then if I want to write a tool, I have to take on the > >responsibility of serial numbering, licensing, probably some sort of > >insurance, etc.. which means I can't do it for free anymore, can't release > >source... > > That's right. That's a good thing. A bunch of bad apples have > spoiled that barrel. Life's like that. While you may be quite correct in that it's too late, I can't see why its a good thing. > > >It's going to squash the little guys. > > They asked for it. Poor little crybaby cybercriminals. > It would be ok if they were all criminals. I might as well stop after this, we're just going around in circles. If you outlaw TFN (or heck, require Mixter to add copy protection and charge $500 for it) then you do the same for L0phtcrack, and all the other tools I've mentioned. Are the L0pht guys over here in the bad guy's corner with Mixter and I? If I'm still a black hat.. I'll still have L0phtcrack. I could still have TFN. I can go through any legitimate channel and get the tool I want. All you've done now is essentially pay lawyers. That, and you've sent us back to trading underground so now NFR doesn't get a copy to play with to develop fingerprints for. Ryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:06:20 PDT