Subject: [bug#48729] [PATCH v5 24/25] gnu: Add bitmask.

From: Maxime Devos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 13:31:39 +0200

Raghav Gururajan schreef op zo 20-06-2021 om 05:52 [-0400]:
> I used white-label because bitmask is neither a service provider on its 
> own nor tied-to/developed-for specific provider. Whichever supported 
> provider is chosen the application name, icons, logo etc becomes that of 
> the provider. In other words, the app re-brands itself based on chosen 
> VPN provider.

This seems like a trademark disaster to happen ...
except that bitmask seems to have some kind of agreement with the VPN
providers (see https://bitmask.net/en#providers), so this ‘rebranding’
is ok I guess.

> But I'll change the while-label to generic, in the synopsis.

To make sure I got the terminology right:

‘service provider’: gratis or paid provider for a virtual private network?

I don't see why one would tie software to a specific service provider?
Besides that the software needs to support the network protocols used
by the service providers of course.

I don't see _why_ bitmask would change the name of the application
depending on the service provider, but whatever I guess. I mean,
IceCat doesn't rename itself to ‘$ISP's Totally Secure Surfer’,
e-mail clients don't rename theirselves to ‘$ISP MyMail’,
depending on the Internet service provider.

‘generic’ LGTM.

Greetings,
Maxime.