4 Jan
2012
4 Jan
'12
4:11 p.m.
"Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> writes:
Analyze as you will :)
One thing that strikes me from the discussion has been an absence of answers to this question: What would reasons be to _not_ release the source code? I believe that unless there is a strong reason not to release the source, it should be done because there is interest in it and there is potential to get improvements out of it. One reason could be that the current security architecture is based on obscurity, but that discussion wasn't conclusive if I remember correctly. In that case, releasing things gradually might be a good compromise, so that people can contribute a better security architecture. /Simon