On 2014-02-03 09:56, Janne Johansson wrote:
> 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.
>
Not to be like this, but I think this is the problem right here. Why get stuck in a discussion about semantics when the bigger
issue is to get away from propritary to something better. Even if it is a little better, it is still better and a path to follow.
-- Regards Peter Eriksson - Senior Systems Administrator Emediate a cxense company Performance Junkie www.emediate.com - www.cxense.com - http://0x2a.se/o.html _______________________________________________ http://www.foss-sthlm.se/ http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foss-sthlmReceived on 2014-02-03