From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Randby Subject: Re: [ANN] [OT] New Android app (Orgzly) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:13:19 -0500 Message-ID: <54C1CA5F.6060209@gmail.com> References: <87lhkvm4nb.fsf@orgzly.com> <87fvb222ft.fsf@gnu.org> <87a91aiie1.fsf@wmi.amu.edu.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40959) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YEVcb-0007sU-WC for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:13:26 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YEVcY-0004Ey-QE for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:13:25 -0500 Received: from mail-ie0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c03::230]:39585) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YEVcY-0004Eu-LE for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:13:22 -0500 Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id rd18so5276635iec.7 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:13:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (cpe-184-56-99-2.neo.res.rr.com. [184.56.99.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g75sm273558ioi.31.2015.01.22.20.13.20 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:13:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87a91aiie1.fsf@wmi.amu.edu.pl> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On 01/22/2015 05:02 PM, Marcin Borkowski wrote: > Now the question is: what is the most appropriate place to *inform* > about his project. If not the Org-mode discussion list, I really don't > know. (I assume that nobody denies his *right* to license his work > according to his wishes, of course, for if not, another explanation > would be that this project doesn't have any right to *exist* in the > first place.) Since we cannot view the code of this software, then we have no way of determining before we use it if it has any purpose other than its stated purpose. For all we know, it contains some nasty code that takes over your system and deletes all of your files or worse. To trust this software because the developer seems to have good intentions is foolish. When I saw the announcement, I interpreted it as saying this: "Gee, here is some neat software I wrote. You can't see the code, but trust me, I'm good. I'll open up part of the code maybe sometime, but for now you can try it out for free. I'm not going to cut you off later and make you pay to continue using this wonderful thing. And no, it doesn't do anything bad like steal information or trash systems. Trust me." No thanks, I say. Promote this somewhere else. Scott Randby