Graham Todd: >> However, I think a good case can be made for pseudonymous contributors >> (I don't know, we may have them now). It supports the philosophy of >> the project, and allows contributions from those who may not have the >> safety and freedom to contribute to a project like this publically. >> Contributions from NSA and CIA employees aren't even necessarily >> ill-intentioned, although I think it would be best to not have people >> who might have a conflict of interest in any leadership or critical >> position in development. > > Can I add my tuppence worth to this important thread? I accepted that > the FSF, in recommending I use gNewSense, was recommending a a totally > free Linux distribution, because I believe (and still believe) that the > endorsement by the FSF is a good measure of its integrity to be what it > claims.
Integrity of what? Ask yourself, why does FSF recommend gNewSense? Their top priority is software freedom (and this is fine!), not necessarily anonymity/privacy/security. I aggree, that software freedom is interlinked to anonymity/privacy/security, but even if it was 100% proven, that Debian, which is in my opinion totally Free as well, is more anonymous/private/secure than gNewSense, but does not fulfill FSF's high standards [1] [2], FSF would still recommend gNewSense over Debian, I think. So if anonymity/privacy/security is your top priority, FSF might not be the most suitable institution to look for recommendations. > Now we have to put our trust in the FSF, in GnuPG, in Tor and VPN > tunnelling: but we should not have to do so. We should be able to > trust our governments to due the right thing as soon as possible. I agree. [1] https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html [2] http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines -- tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
