41–50 of 162 posts
Would this prevent us from requiring VW make available it's source code? Not a lawyer.
Why would you want VW to make available its source code?
a) they would have been less likely to deliberately subvert the emissions tests in the code or
b) they were more likely to have been found out earlier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Playing the devil's advocate here, but you shouldn't need access to a car's source code to measure its emissions. The test is broken, not the software.
Expounding further - what government agency has the time or money to actually sift through mountains of source code? From a pure financial standpoint, there's no possible way that it isn't cheaper to just measure real emissions than attempt some kind of software analysis for every version of every vehicle on the market. Furthermore, an agency inspecting source code has absolutely no way to tell whether or not that th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This prevents a country from forcing somebody like Microsoft or Apple to give up their source code for "inspection" in order to access their market. Since when is that a good thing?
America hopes to use TPP as a model for a similar deal with China, so America has insisted on a bunch of rules you'd only expect in a trade deal with a banana republic - like investor-state dispute settlement. At present, "Chinese officials have learned to tackle multinational companies, often forcing them to form joint ventures with [Chinese companies] and transfer the latest technology in exchange for current and f…
However, given the contents of the treaty, I don't think this exclusion is something that really bothers China.
China wanted in on the WTO bad. Real bad. China doesn't really care about the TPP.
These are rules for States. It has no bearing whatsoever on the GPL. This prevents a country from forcing somebody like Microsoft or Apple to give up their source code for "inspection" in order to access their market. It also helps to prevent States from demanding and acquiring encryption or other private keys (there's a separate section that also explicitly forbids mandating backdoors be added). Not everything in th…
It means other countries can not have the software they buy inspected for NSA (or whoever else) planted backdoors.
It also means that countries can not ask for source code in a guarantee that the software will remain useful if the company goes away.
What it does not mean is that those countries will stop pirating software. There's no mechanism for enforcing that.
These are rules for States. It has no bearing whatsoever on the GPL. This prevents a country from forcing somebody like Microsoft or Apple to give up their source code for "inspection" in order to access their market. It also helps to prevent States from demanding and acquiring encryption or other private keys (there's a separate section that also explicitly forbids mandating backdoors be added). Not everything in th…
Maybe not everything in it is bad, but this part is very bad. It means other countries can not have the software they buy inspected for NSA (or whoever else) planted backdoors. It also means that countries can not ask for source code in a guarantee that the software will remain useful if the company goes away. What it does not mean is that those countries will stop pirating software. There's no mechanism for enforcin…
So a government can still choose to use open source software, and have whoever do whatever consulting on that software, they just can't refuse to allow a proprietary vendor to offer their product for sale.
These are rules for States. It has no bearing whatsoever on the GPL. This prevents a country from forcing somebody like Microsoft or Apple to give up their source code for "inspection" in order to access their market. It also helps to prevent States from demanding and acquiring encryption or other private keys (there's a separate section that also explicitly forbids mandating backdoors be added). Not everything in th…
Maybe not everything in it is bad, but this part is very bad. It means other countries can not have the software they buy inspected for NSA (or whoever else) planted backdoors. It also means that countries can not ask for source code in a guarantee that the software will remain useful if the company goes away. What it does not mean is that those countries will stop pirating software. There's no mechanism for enforcin…
These are rules for States. It has no bearing whatsoever on the GPL. This prevents a country from forcing somebody like Microsoft or Apple to give up their source code for "inspection" in order to access their market. It also helps to prevent States from demanding and acquiring encryption or other private keys (there's a separate section that also explicitly forbids mandating backdoors be added). Not everything in th…
As products grow in complexity and corporation grow in power the only way to secure safety of the public would be to prevent corporations from profiting from secrecy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Playing the devil's advocate here, but you shouldn't need access to a car's source code to measure its emissions. The test is broken, not the software.
Expounding further - what government agency has the time or money to actually sift through mountains of source code? From a pure financial standpoint, there's no possible way that it isn't cheaper to just measure real emissions than attempt some kind of software analysis for every version of every vehicle on the market. Furthermore, an agency inspecting source code has absolutely no way to tell whether or not that th…
If the binaries don't match, then whatever certification the device needs automatically fails and it cannot be sold.
What that means is that later on, if "Something Bad" happens, you are in a position to be certain of what code was running. This makes investigation much easier as there is no chance that the original source code cannot be found when needed later. This does get a bit more complicated with software updates, especially OTA updates.