I mean, I suppose if I got my hands on the source for IE, I could fix that, as well, but why go through the trouble when I can readily obtain the source for a number of other browsers?
That is to say, having the source doesn't make finding vulns easier (or harder, as you imply), it does, however, make fixing them easier.
Anyone can view the source of an open source project, which means anyone can find vulnerabilities in it. Specifically, hackers wishing to exploit the software, as well as users withing to audit and fix the software. But, someone who knows what they're doing has to actually look at the source for that to matter; and this rarely happens.
Hackers must black-box closed source software to find exploits, which make it more difficult than finding them in open source software; the flip-side is that they can only by fixed by the few people who have the source. If the hacker doesn't disclose the exploit and the people with access to the code don't look for it, it goes unpatched forever.
Open source software does provide an advantage to both sides, hackers can find exploits more easily and users can fix them more easily; with closed source, you're at the mercy of the vendor to fix their code but, at the same time, it's more difficult for a hacker to find a vulnerability without access to the source.
Then, we consider how good fuzzing techniques have gotten and... well, as it becomes easier to find vulnerabilities in closed source software, open source starts to look better.
Distributing without selling or licensing is still distributing, and is still covered by copyright.
As the photographer, I hold the copyright on my work. You must be confused.
Okay, you did disagree with me regarding the model's level of involvement in the sale or licensing of the photo. And you're wrong; as a photographer, I hold a fair hand of cards cards. The model can decide who I *can* not sell or license to, and I can decide who I *will* not; if the model had all they say, I'd have to sell or license the photo to whomever the model dictated and that is, simply, not the case.
While you did "[invite me] to consider whether [my] position would change if [I] knew one of those victims"; you also, immediately before that, managed to insinuate that I didn't give this any thought, rather than accepting the possibility that I was working off of incorrect or incomplete information, as was the case, and took the liberty of making another bold assumption about me; I'll leave it to you to figure out what that assumption was and why you were wrong to do so.
Stating that you disagree with me and providing your opinion, as you did in the first paragraph of your initial reply to me, was spot-on. Everything you've wrote after that was inflammatory, and I think you know that. Stopping at the end of your first paragraph would have garnered a more positive response; simply, me stating that I had actually been presented additional information and an alternative viewpoint on the subject, and had already reconsidered my position. I would have had nothing to call out out on and, therefore, would not have done so.
I've admitted everything you're trying to point out about how I was wrong in my postings on this topic. I've learned, I've grown, and I'm man enough to admit I was wrong. That's more than you can say.
Go ahead, have the last word. You know you want it. But if you choose to take another stab at me, don't expect me to let it stand.