The PureOS installation says to use Etcher for installs:
This means handing complete trust of both your old and new system to a third-party for-profit company which collects usage data etc. This goes against the Purism ethos of privacy, security, and trust.
Most users could just use cp or dd or diskutil (mac) to accomplish the same thing.
This tool is free software since it has Apache License 2.0
This file has been truncated.
Version 2.0, January 2004
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION
"License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction,
and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document.
"Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by
the copyright owner that is granting the License.
"Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all
other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common
control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition,
"control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the
direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or
@pum can point out what data they collect.
What else is there? A simple search with DDG on “write iso linux” turns up the other than Etcher the following and I’m sure there are more:
(linux added to the search string to weed out windoze results.)
My guess is the minimum data they collect is the number of installs. Like the Counting Count.
1 install, ha, ha, ha …
2 installs, ha, ha, ha …
3 installs, ha, ha, ha …
To those who don’t get the reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_von_Count . Don’t watch the censored song.
Well it’s not like it has a great history of earning user trust:
Seems weird that Librem wouldn’t recommend an alternative, given that
of your “secure” “trusted” PureOS system will be given to this third-party, if you follow PureOS’ install instructions. They could at least mention / link to some alternatives. Right? complete control and authority
i’ll just drop this here in case anybody is in a mood for a TL;DR :
Copyleft is a distinguishing feature of some free software licenses, while other free-software licenses are not copyleft licenses because they do not require the licensee to distribute derivative works under the same license. There is an ongoing debate as to which class of license provides the greater degree of freedom. This debate hinges on complex issues, such as the definition of freedom and whose freedoms are more important: the potential future recipients of a work (freedom from the creation...
OP has a point. the Apache License is a permissive license. this means that the ‘legal-team’ wanted the possibility of ‘a-way-out’ … nuttin’ wrong with that. it’s the freedom to choose but it ain’t as ‘decided’ as the GPL license for example …
everybody is free to choose in ‘the-spectrum’ but i would urge people to not FORCE anybody into anything …