@starman@programming.dev to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish • edit-21 month agoActually, Winamp is not going Open Sourceprogramming.devimagemessage-square99fedilinkarrow-up1667file-text
arrow-up1667imageActually, Winamp is not going Open Sourceprogramming.dev@starman@programming.dev to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish • edit-21 month agomessage-square99fedilinkfile-text
minus-square@sorghum@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglish21•1 month agoI look at ‘source available’ software as the right to review the code yourself to ensure there’s no malicious behavior, not for community development.
minus-square@solrize@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish7•1 month agoYou mean if you build it yourself? I guess that is something, but it is still conceivable to sneak stuff in. Look at that xzlib backdoor from a few weeks ago.
minus-square@xavier666@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglish1•1 month agoIs there any way to verify that the product in deployment is built from the same source? I’m guessing hash values but I still think it can be faked.
I look at ‘source available’ software as the right to review the code yourself to ensure there’s no malicious behavior, not for community development.
You mean if you build it yourself? I guess that is something, but it is still conceivable to sneak stuff in. Look at that xzlib backdoor from a few weeks ago.
Is there any way to verify that the product in deployment is built from the same source? I’m guessing hash values but I still think it can be faked.