On 3 Jun 2005 at 11:02, Rod Giffin wrote: > On Fri, June 3, 2005 10:53, Dan Langille said: > > On 3 Jun 2005 at 10:30, Rod Giffin wrote: > > > >> On Fri, June 3, 2005 10:25, Dan Langille said: > >> > On 3 Jun 2005 at 10:20, Bill Strosberg wrote: > >> >> CACert is no better or worse than anyone else in the business. > >> >> My position is that the whole on-line trust model is broken. > >> >> Profit!-motivated organizations have no place in a trustworthy > >> >> system. Principles are always soluable in cash. > >> > > >> > CACert is not a company. It's not involved in cash. There's no > >> > profit. I don't see how your comments relate to my question. > >> > >> According to their website, CACert is indeed a company > >> (not-for-profit, asking for donations). They identify themselves > >> as CACert Inc. http://www.cacert.org/index.php?id=13 > > > > So you are equating that company, which I didn't notice before, with > > the CACert community and project? > > No, I'm just pointing out that it's a company, which would tend to be > a good thing for liability reasons. > > Nevertheless, I agree with Bill's sentiment that the whole on-line > trust model is broken, although I think there are things other than > cash that are corrosive to principles. The cash model at least lets > me establish the expectation of service. This thread isn't about the whole on-line trust model. It's about CACert. For the most part, the only comments have been about money and motives. From what I can tell, money isn't the motive behind CACert. -- Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/ BSDCan - The Technical BSD Conference - http://www.bsdcan.org/