From xemacs-m  Thu Apr 10 21:59:01 1997
Received: from pentagana.sonic.jp (jhod@tc-5-053.tokyo.gol.com [203.216.8.53])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA01162
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:58:24 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from jhod@localhost) by pentagana.sonic.jp (8.7.1+2.6Wbeta4/3.4W3) id LAA00213; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:47:47 +0900
Sender: jhod@pentagana.sonic.jp
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Anonymous patches (was Re: Patch to EGG-SJ3/XEmacs-20.1b11-mule)
References: <9704100019.AA05246@cfdevx1.lehman.com>
From: jhod@po.iijnet.or.jp (P. E. Jareth Hein)
In-Reply-To: Rick Campbell's message of Wed, 09 Apr 1997 20:19:43 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: 11 Apr 1997 11:47:45 +0900
Message-ID: <u467xugtri.fsf@pentagana.sonic.jp>
Lines: 24
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.33/XEmacs 20.1(beta9)

Rick Campbell <rickc@lehman.com> writes:

>     From: Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com>
>     Date: 08 Apr 1997 22:39:07 -0700
>     
>     This is pretty much an open question to the group.  What kind of
>     policy should we have towards anonymous patches?
>     
>     My apologies to everyone if I'm being overly paranoid.
> 
> I would turn the question on its head and ask how well you know most
> of the people that you accept patches from.
<snip> 
> I'd say ``Trust the art, not the artist'', that is, check patches out,
> but don't dismiss them outright because the author makes it more clear
> than most that you really don't know much about her.

I would agree with you Rick if we were talking about worries about
virii or worms or other maliciousness. However, as in this case we are 
more interested in protecting the `freeness' of the software, and as
such I would agree with Steve that we really don't want to open
ourselves to that sort of legal blindsiding.

--Jareth

