Hi,
(sorry I'm very late)
u:
> intrigeri:
>>> Tails will always be free to use, remix, adapt and distribute.
>>
>> I think we should not ignore the exception we make for firmware here,
>> and try to be upfront about it, e.g. as we tried to do on our License
>> page: https://tails.boum.org/doc/about/license/
> I agree and added the same sentence.
Good!
>>> When we write new components of the Tails system, we will license
>>> them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free
>>> Software Guidelines.
>>
>> In there, "new" suggests to me that there have been exceptions in the
>> past. Are there any? If not, let's be clearer and instead write: "All
>> the components of Tails that we create ourselves are, and will be,
>> licensed in a manner […]".
> ack
Good!
Now I've re-read the current text of "2. Tails is and will remain free
software", and it's much better now:
* it covers what we create ourselves;
* it covers the firmware exception;
* for everything else, it says "Tails will always be free to use,
remix, adapt and distribute"; I think this is correct for what's in
our Git tree; but I'm not sure it applies to everything we include
in the ISO (e.g. virtualbox requires a non-free compiler, and stuff
installed by libdvd-pkg is not exactly FOSS); so in this sentence,
"Tails" can't possibly mean "everything that's in the Tails ISO
image we ship to users, except firmware". If I'm the only free
software zealot who find this confusing and a bit over-promising,
feel free to ignore me; but if this is a problem for you too, then
perhaps a minor rephrasing would be in order.
>>> 5. We will not hide problems
>> […]
> I modified this part quite a bit. Please review.
Good!
>>> We provide and explain methods of verification so that anyone can
>>> ensure that they downloaded a genuine copy of Tails.
>>
>> This feels out of place in a section titled "6. We are honest about
>> the capabilities and limits of Tails and related technologies".
>> I'm not sure why mentioning this specific security feature of the
>> Tails ecosystem (and not any other such feature) is very relevant in
>> our social contract.
> I think we basically wanted to extend the paragraph about trust. And
> through reproducible ISO images in the future and currently verification
> methods we want people to be able to trust what they downloaded.
Got it.
> I agree, this might not be the right place to say this.
> And even, that this sentence might not eben have to be in the contract.
> For now, i left it in there, until further discussion.
An option could be to retitle this section to make this sentence fit
better in its scope, but that's a nitpick: let's keep it this way
for now :)
Cheers!
--
intrigeri
