Proof: "They said they don't use private code. Either the private code appearing is published somewhere else, or they are using private code. Lying would be bad. Therefore the code is published somewhere else, and they don't use private code".
>> * Don't lie about what it does.
>> * Don't hack people by smuggling some nasty code into minor version updates.
>> * Don't leave people vulnerable to third party exposure by not taking care of your private keys.
>
> If you get hit by any of those points you list, then you're the one responsible for that.
If someone on the street hands you a free sample, say a candy bar, is it then your responsibility to check that the candy bar:
1. contains no razor blades (malicious behavior), and
2. contains no peanuts because of your allergy even though the packaging says it doesn't (lying about what it is)?
Obviously not, anyone handing those out violating those assumptions is an asshole and in most jurisdictions a criminal. It is not the responsibility of the acceptor to check these things, our society expects (and enforces through the law) that people are honest and non-malicious. Even if the sample is free.
The exact same applies to source code you distribute. It would not be reasonable to analyze every free candy bar for hidden razor blades by meticulously taking it apart, nor do a spectral analysis for peanut traces in exactly the same way it is not reasonable for people to verify every line of code.
This is exactly the reason they responded. By changing the code quietly, they would implicate themselves. An official PR statement like this is obligatory.
What is more probable, that they a lying, or that the random generator generated not a single code that matched, which is very(!) improbable by itself, but two codes that belong to the same account, generated at the same iteration.
No disagreement there. Mathnerd314 asked for proof of stolen code, which of course is difficult to provide when we're talking about a closed source product. So the original authors must resort to indirect proof like comparing visuals and inspecting the binary.
Not that they abstain from doing that shit today, when code is not often published.
An educated and motivated layperson at least would have the chance to learn whether the critique is faulty. Today, with secret code, it is impossible to verify for almost everybody.
Proposition: "They don't use private code".
Proof: "They said they don't use private code. Either the private code appearing is published somewhere else, or they are using private code. Lying would be bad. Therefore the code is published somewhere else, and they don't use private code".
reply