[Dev] [consensus] Features vs. Privacy in nonprism repo
alejandrohp at openmailbox.org
Tue Oct 4 18:39:02 GMT 2016
El 2016-10-04 18:36, Joshua Haase escribió:
> Luke <g4jc at openmailbox.org> writes:
>> _- So this puts the nonprism projects at a crossroads. Do we want to
>> favour accessibility and "features" over "privacy"?_
> I think non-prism should be expected to favour privacy and break sites
> where needed.
>> From my personal opinion, nonprism should provide security and privacy
>> by default. Users can choose to opt-out of nonprism if they wish. This
>> is easily done by A) not using nonprism, or B) using about:config
>> user.js to override the settings.
> I'd rather have nonprism as opt-in.
> When using Parabola GNU/Linux-libre you customize your system and it's
> trivial to change your packages from [libre] to [nonprism].
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at lists.parabola.nu
I don't understand why libre-software packages, apparently respectful
with user rights and stable are not available for all users. 🤔 That's
why I think 'PCR' repository should be activated by default. And if they
are unstable packages, they should go into another repo like
Libre Software is not only about a license, but about respect for user
rights. That's why we use it and we've all previously decided that
rights are before than features. We want to take advantage of such
features (like ubication) but not at cost of giving this info to others
who use it against users.
Nonprism packages replace other packages in the same way that libre
packages do. So I think 'nonprism' repo should also be activated by
More information about the Dev