LinuxMusicians

Posted: **Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:35 am**

d.healey wrote:Excellent, I'm genuinely interested to hear your ideas.

Aw, hell, here's the draft I've written a couple of days ago:

## License

### 4 fundamental freedoms

### Manual license audit

### AI legalese interpreter

### Database of copyright/patent/trademark laws

### Automated license audit

## Step 2

### Reproducible builds

### Manual code audit

### Web of trust

## Step 3

### Automatic code audit (source code antivirus)

### Proper VMs for dynamic analysis

### Formal proof (what about hardware backdoors?)

### Automated formal proof with all bells and whistles

Posted: **Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:55 am**

Lyberta wrote:

d.healey wrote:Excellent, I'm genuinely interested to hear your ideas.

Aw, hell, here's the draft I've written a couple of days ago:

Code: Select all

## License

### 4 fundamental freedoms

### Manual license audit

### AI legalese interpreter

### Database of copyright/patent/trademark laws

### Automated license audit

## Step 2

### Reproducible builds

### Manual code audit

### Web of trust

## Step 3

### Automatic code audit (source code antivirus)

### Proper VMs for dynamic analysis

### Formal proof (what about hardware backdoors?)

### Automated formal proof with all bells and whistles

Looks interesting. So will there be a kind of seal of approval given by the organisation that carries out the manual code inspections? Who will carry out these audits?

Posted: **Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:01 am**

Web of trust. People who audit the code then sign the binary with their signature and then there will be a system where every user has a list of trusted keys so they can install only software signed by trusted keys. This is similar to how APT works in Debian.

LinuxMusicians

Github Microsoft/calculator README.md

Re: Github Microsoft/calculator README.md

Re: Github Microsoft/calculator README.md

Re: Github Microsoft/calculator README.md