I thought the whole argument of libre/free vs. open source had absolutely nothing to do with the source itself, but it's about the essential freedoms as granted in the software. So, in some respects, Apple and Microsoft allow developers to see the source of at least some of the systems (when you're developing on their systems), but the systems that one creates in this way are non-free. And open source has allowed companies like Google and co to whitewash the whole idea of being free to program. (Luckily, their reach hasn't extended to cooking food for ourselves, or we'd have to invent a government plan to reduce/add/modify salt/sugar content in food. No wait, such programs do exist!)
Russell If days were numbered, this one would probably be 23...
On 23/08/2016, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Henrik Nordström henrik@henriknordstrom.net wrote:
sön 2016-08-21 klockan 21:55 +0100 skrev Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
From a security point of view, open source code
no it isn't... *libre* source code is...
I would love to hear your elaboration on how libre source code is more secure than open source. I don't see how libre have any relevance there.
Having access to the complete readable sourcecode and being developed in a trustworthy environment is very relevant. But that is by no means unique to libre or even proven to be an natural effect of libre.
thanks for picking up on that, henrik. so you're saying that if the source is "open" it's no different from "libre" because in both cases the full source is available.
so it would only be instances where the source *isn't* available (and the binary was encrypted with an RSA key, then loaded into a separate virtual memory space which was made inaccessible to even read)... but that would, yes, be an instance where source... wasn't available :)
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk