In the past, we’ve made the mistake of conflating ownership of the code with ownership of the infra, and vice versa, and we’d like to straighten this out so that we aren’t put in a legal bind that requires us to take control of the entire codebase when, we all agree, that is not proper or correct given the existing model.
Let’s imagine a world where Alice needs to access some website or “Resource”. In a standard non-anonymous authentication flow, Alice needs to be granted authorization (a “credential”, such as a cookie) to do this. This grant can come either from the Resource itself (e.g., the website), or in other cases, from a third party (for example, Google’s SSO service.) For the moment we should assume that the preconditions for are not private: that is, Alice will presumably need to reveal something about her identity to the person who issues the credential. For example, she might use her credit card to pay for a subscription (e.g., for a news website), or she might hand over her driver’s license to prove that she’s an adult.
，更多细节参见WPS官方版本下载
Фото: Таисия Воронцова / РИА Новости，这一点在下载安装 谷歌浏览器 开启极速安全的 上网之旅。中也有详细论述
ВсеПолитикаОбществоПроисшествияКонфликтыПреступность