Hi,
intrigeri:
> u:
>> intrigeri:
> Equal access to information includes the free availability of our
> code and documentation as well as the transparency of our decision
> making processes.
>
> All the components of Tails that we create ourselves are, and will
> be, licensed them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines.
>
> Tails will always be free to use, remix, adapt and distribute.
> As the only exceptions to this rule, Tails includes:
>
> * a minor part of non-free firmware in order to work on as much
> hardware as possible;
> * a few pieces of software whose source code is public but not
> compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines; they are
> needed to support important use cases.
>
> This forbids us from ever including software whose source code is not
> publicly available (e.g. a custom kernel built with a grsec patch that
> would be available via private channels only, or binary-only drivers
> for some GPU found on ARM Chromebooks); I think that's desirable.
>
> This allows us to ship at least the packages from Debian "contrib" we
> currently want (and probably most, but not all, packages from
> contrib).
>
> What do you think?
Sounds perfect to me.
> I also wondered if we should add a bit about cryptographic signatures
> (e.g. when we'll do SecureBoot), but in the end I think it's not worth
> the added complexity: I understand this document as a set of
> guidelines, not as a legally binding document that would need to be
> 100% precise.
Absolutely. We threw out a lot of such detailed specifications, in order
to keep a very general guideline.
>>>> 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 :)
>
>> Can you propose a better title then please?
>
> Sure: how about something like "We give users the means to decide how
> much they can rely on Tails"?
Ack.
cheers
u.
