On 01/31/14 13:20, Tommy Nevtelen wrote:
>>> Auditable code needs to be shared under a license that has
>>> strong copyleft, a Free Software license. This is why tools like Gnu
>>
>> I'd say this is an opinion and not a fact.
>>
>>> privacy guard are GPL v3, to ensure that anyone can audit and implement
>>> strong encryption. Open Source does not provide the same guarantees.
>>
>> I don't see people having a hard time auditing OpenSSL due to the
>> license, and that isn't GPLv3.
>>
>
> What I think he means is that with Open Source licenses you can make
> propritary producs that are changed in a way that differs from public
> versions of openssl. If our goal is to make the EU run code that is auditable
> then we need to have a license that guarantees this. But that could ofcourse
> be solved with some law or regulation which would provide a safeguard
> against propritary binaries. But why not use a license that guarantees this
> from the beginning?
They would only have to have a directive that says "publish the code you
run", regardless of if it is GPL or MIT/X11 or made specifically for
them by code monkeys in a commercial setting. And this "rule" would go
in the same place where you would put "You must use GPLv3 license" and
it would work equally well to allow EU citizens to audit the code we
want our Union to run.
_______________________________________________
http://www.foss-sthlm.se/
http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foss-sthlm
Received on 2014-02-03