On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 17:32 -0400, John Sullivan wrote:
>
> One way may be to have the software in question be a fully
> reproducible
> build. The state (or whoever) maintains a list of approved hashes
> from
> known reproducible builds that people can install on their own cars,
> and
> there is
On 5/9/23 07:32, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
[snip]
The punishment for this fraud did not include mandating free software.
As far as I know, none of the victimized customers ended up with free
software car firmware and the means to update applicable cars to a libre
version of that software (no
On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 08:57:22AM -0700, Matt Ivie wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-05-06 at 16:58 +0300, Lars Noodén wrote:
> > Recent news¹ reminds us that back in 2015 a whistleblower exposed the
> > VW/Audi emissions scandal, which I guess had been going on since
> > 1999.
> > The companies executives
Very good initiative Lars.
It is possible (but very difficult in practice) to create a device, as
"simple" as a open source open hardware counter, as "simple" as that,
embedded in every sensor or controller, that counts how many times it
was re-configured. Again, proprietary
A very effective argument is to look back at what happened under software
non-freedom. The entirety of https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/ is replete with
examples of this, often from establishment-serving media which passes muster in the
computer field. In fact
On Sat, 2023-05-06 at 16:58 +0300, Lars Noodén wrote:
> Recent news¹ reminds us that back in 2015 a whistleblower exposed the
> VW/Audi emissions scandal, which I guess had been going on since
> 1999.
> The companies executives used closed source, proprietary software in
> the
> vehicles to hide
Recent news¹ reminds us that back in 2015 a whistleblower exposed the
VW/Audi emissions scandal, which I guess had been going on since 1999.
The companies executives used closed source, proprietary software in the
vehicles to hide the fact that the vehicles were emitting 40 times the
allowed NOx
