alt Hacker News> 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.
Replies
> crime and an instance of copyright infringement.
Well-made distinction; +1.
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.
Thank you for the laugh!
They checked with their lawyers first… lol.
Pretty sure all laws are null and void in their mind.
HAHAHAHAHAH I genuinely laughed a lot, thank you
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.