Reduce extrapolation in some strings

[bbhtt]

website/frontend/public/locales/en/common.json

Line 473 in 52d86a3

"proprietary-explanation": "This app is not developed in the open, so only its developers know how it works. It may be insecure in ways that are hard to detect, and it may change without oversight.",

website/frontend/public/locales/en/common.json

Line 475 in 52d86a3

"community-built-explanation": "This app is developed in the open by an international community, and released under the <bold>{ license }</bold>.",

website/frontend/public/locales/en/common.json

Line 507 in 52d86a3

"auditable-code-description": "The source code is public and can be independently audited, which makes the app more likely to be safe",

Above 3 come from licence, which only tells us whether the licence is open source or not open source. We should not extrapolate too much from the licence and make soft claims about safety, international community etc.

Also the labels get applied to non-app things too so the "app" part should be dropped.

I'm thinking something along the lines of (in order):

• "The source code is not public, so it cannot be independently audited or verified."
• "The source code is public, and it is released under XXX."
• "The source code is public, so it can be independently audited and verified."

website/frontend/public/locales/en/common.json

Line 508 in 52d86a3

"software-developer-verified-description": "The software developer has verified their identity, which makes the app more likely to be safe",

This one is slightly inaccurate (no one has verified their identity, verifying identity means something else) and does not match the label in the verification blue tick tooltip. And, same logic about the soft claim of safety.

• "The developer has verified their ownership of $appid, and it may be maintained by the developer.", or
• "The developer has verified their ownership of $appid"

website/frontend/public/locales/en/common.json

Line 474 in abfd43e

"community-built": "Community built",

Same here and also it does not match what the special and proprietary labels say. Those two are specifically about the licence, while this isn't.

It should just be:

• "Free and open source", or
• “Open source”

[razzeee]

Not convinced normal users should know about "source code". That's probably why the license texts lifted from gnome don't mention that. We kinda dropped the ball on the safety string there.

I think we can use the g-s strings for the verification description. They've come up with something more true.

[bbhtt]

They don't need to, it's about being accurate. No normal user cares about it being community built either. That's only important if someone cares or someone is contributing.

[bbhtt]

I think we can use the g-s strings for the verification description. They've come up with something more true.

They are using this, which is even less accurate and vague.

[bbhtt]

Also if you are looking at gnome-software, we ought to look at others too. gnome software is the only one I found to be extrapolating strings like that which got directly lifted to the website.

In comparison, these are happily using licence and even linking to the licence texts. Being brief like these is also OK, at least it's accurate.

Elementary OS 8

Discover:

[razzeee]

I think we can use the g-s strings for the verification description. They've come up with something more true.

They are using this, which is even less accurate and vague.

I meant the hover text on a verification icon, not that wording.

Developer {name} has proven the ownership of {url}

[bbhtt]

The hover text is fine, ours is fine, g-s's is fine as well. The one problematic is used inside the safety dialogue, which doesn't match with the one in the hover.