Re: GPLv3

> The gplv3 FAQ says this:
>> I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its =
authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private =
signing keys?
>>=20
>> No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if =
you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware =
checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would =
function. In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone =
who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install =
modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of =
the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser =
the key for his instance.
>=20
> Everything following =93No=94 is saying =93Yes", you would have to =
give up private signing keys if you are code-signing for safety.


If you can run code that is not signed, then you have "This is the =
unmodified, secure code", and "This is a modified code; are you sure you =
want to run it?".

I can have an app licensed to a specific machine by giving that machine =
and app combination a certificate.=20
A user can modify that app, use that certificate that is specific to =
that app and that machine, to resign.
The hardware can check that the code is both validly signed, and that =
the signing key is appropriate to the local machine.

I can, for example, have a machine designed for students, with no =
ability for the user to say "trust this" -- code has to be trustable =
before it will run -- and give the individual student the ability to =
sign custom code for their own machine.=20

Nothing requires you to give up private keys.
All you have to do is provide a machine specific key for the next step =
in signing, with no requirement that someone else can generate machine =
keys on their own.

---
This is coming from Mail.app. I hate the new Gmail web look, and dislike =
Mail only slightly less.