| Revision as of 18:26, 7 January 2007 editH (talk | contribs)23,582 edits my 2 cents← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:05, 7 January 2007 edit undoPeter M Dodge (talk | contribs)4,982 edits Reply →Someone please explain to me...Next edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :Not sure, I have read it and it seems to be safe releasing the source. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | :Not sure, I have read it and it seems to be safe releasing the source. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| If Dragons flight released the source, I would withdraw my opposition. My only significant beef is the needless secrecy. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 19:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:05, 7 January 2007
Someone please explain to me...
Why can't the source code be revealed? AWB would require much less modification to be an effective vandalbot, and its source is freely available to anyone who cares. -Amarkov edits 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure, I have read it and it seems to be safe releasing the source. HighInBC 18:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If Dragons flight released the source, I would withdraw my opposition. My only significant beef is the needless secrecy. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)