That just means no one else can pretend they are you, but it also means they can know it HAS to be you.
If you sign two images with that private key, people will know for certain that you created both of them. This is the whole point of signing something. No one else can fake it because they don't have the private key, but EVERYONE can verify it because they DO have the public key. In fact, they don't even need the public key because they can extract it from the signature and the signed image.
What an incredibly bad take. "It's not open source because we have the source but not the thought process of the developer" - well then no project on this earth is truly open source by your definition.
> The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
With that definition, there's definitely space for arguing that the AI tooling for modifying the code is necessary for the modification process to be sane therefore "preferable" for any human, if the code is "designed" (or lack of design thereof) around the idea of being AI-maintained.
Otherwise, it's not source-code, it's not meaningfully-modifiable, it's basically equivalent to just decompiling a binary. (similarly-bad quality may of course be human-produced too, though then at least you have direct proof of it being the preferred form for at least one person - the author)
reply