"Jim O'Regan" <[email protected]> writes: > On 29 October 2014 10:29, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Mikel Artetxe <[email protected]> writes: >>> Sure. In fact, that's exactly what I was proposing from the beginning. >>> Jim's point was that we would be forced to publish our private key >>> because of GPL, but it looks like that wouldn't be necessary after >>> all. >> >> apt-get is GPL, and it uses a set of public keys to check the downloaded >> software. It lets you change its keyring of course, but a user could do >> that with Mitzuli as well by downloading the source and swapping out the >> public key for their own and signing their own language pairs etc. >> > > apt is quite different; firstly, it's demonstrably not intended > primarily for use on "User Devices";
Should I not be running apt on my laptop? > but it also allows you to rebuild > the package from (possibly modified) source, as well as install your > own keys, or install unsigned packages -- the latter two were both > possibilities Mikel mentioned for Mitzuli. Well, I was assuming that installing an unsigned package will give a warning, and that people can get Mitzuli's source to rebuild with their own validation key. Though of course one could make a UI for easily putting in new keys so you don't have to build from source, but does the GPL really cover that difference? -- Kevin Brubeck Unhammer GPG: 0x766AC60C
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
