You want to be sure if the integrity of the binaries that are running. That needs a chain of trust from firmware to user space.
stsquad
joined 2 years ago
Kernel access isn't needed if they use signed boot and can verify everything running is what it should be.
Ah yes, found the drop down. Thanks.
Weird, opening in Pipe Pipe it seems to be some sort of Arabic. I wonder if I'm getting some weird auto-dub?
Has this been dubbed into a different language?
I don't think it's the worst fear. At least they choose the Greens over Reform.
Free software licenses generally don't restrict what kind of study or what kind of changes you can make. A lot of licences explicitly say "for any purpose". There are licences that add additional restrictions, for example restricting the field of use to non-military, but they are not free software licenses.
ETA: the question of where liability lies for infringing terms of a source license occur should a LLM model launder for example GPL code into a propriety code base is something that will have to be decided by the courts.
Freedom 1 of the four software freedoms is:
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
We already have those, for example in the UK the ASA is a self regulatory body which prohibits deceptive advertising. They can also refer cases to statutory authorities such as Ofcom or Trading Standards.
YMMV in other jurisdictions.
I don't think anyone will be shipping CHERI this year. However I suspect a lot of ideas from it will make it's way into Arm and RISCV architecture enhancements.
view more: next ›
The chain of trust will depend on the hardware. I would expect on a Steam Deck it would be Valve all the way. If it was Ubuntu it would be Microsoft then Canonical. I doubt any random distro would be acceptable to the games wanting to enforce anti cheat.