Walter, (cc'd to list)<br><br>There was a recent discussion on #sugar about how to handle authentication and signatures for library and activity bundles. One of the models we considered which is most attractive from a ease-of-use and technical standpoint is that of a centralized "Sugar Labs signing authority" which would give trusted developers the ability to digitally sign activities posted on addons.sl.o as Untampered, Safe, and Trusted.<br>
<br>This is a Good Thing(tm), because it allows the user to verify that his documents are not modified in transit, that they are fairly accurate, etcetera. <br><br>It may pose as a legal liability for Sugar Labs, however, as Ivan pointed out: Chains of trust represent also a chain of legal liability, and whoever is on top is painting a giant "sue me" target on their back if anyone below screws up, gives incorrect information, or information that's used incorrectly.<br>
<br>Could ask your contacts at the SFLC to assess SL's liability in this situation?<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Luke Faraone<br><a href="http://luke.faraone.cc">http://luke.faraone.cc</a><br>