From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bill-auger Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium. Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 05:56:56 -0500 Message-ID: <20190204055656.6aad770f@parabola> References: <20190202192023.22087-1-mbakke@fastmail.com> <87k1igpwk8.fsf@dismail.de> <20190203235204.63970587@parabola> <20190204074629.GD14481@gnu.org> Reply-To: Workgroup for fully free GNU/Linux distributions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190204074629.GD14481@gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gnu-linux-libre-bounces+gldg-gnu-linux-libre=m.gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: "gnu-linux-libre" To: gnu-linux-libre@nongnu.org Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org List-Id: guix-devel.gnu.org On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 02:46:30 -0500 Ineiev wrote: > On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 11:52:04PM -0500, bill-auger wrote: > > the main, central FSDG concern: which programs are > > freely distributable and which are not > > I don't think the main FSDG concern is which programs are freely > distributable, and even which programs are free geez, i almost erased that bit before sending it too :( - to be clear: by "freely distributable" i totally meant "provides all five of the four freedoms" i will append just this - the issue here is really quite simple to express - one (and only one) of the following statements must be true: * the chromium software provides all of the four freedoms * the chromium software does not provide all of the four freedoms there is no third option according to the FSDG, qualifying distros are free to distribute any software that is known to provide all of the four freedoms; and must not distribute any software that does not meet that standard - we can all agree on this so far - yes? therefore, both of the following statements must be true: * IF chromium provides all of the four freedoms, then any FSDG distro is free to distribute it, if they so choose * IF chromium is not known to provide all of the four freedoms, or is known to not provide all of the four freedoms, then none of the FSDG distros should choose to distribute it; and any that does, should have a freedom bug posted against it immediately, just as happened with pureos does anyone disagree with either of those two statements? the FSDG itself is not really the issue here - it is quite clear on most matters - the problem is that no one knows for certain which one of those two statements is the actual case in reality - so the key concerns are: "who shall make that determination?", and "by which standards?" should software be considered to be provide all of the four freedoms until proven otherwise? (e.g. because someone slapped an MIT on top of it) - or should software be considered to not necessarily provide all of the four freedoms until proven to do so? should each distro decide for itself what qualifies as FSDG-free software and what does not? - or would such decisions be better made by consensus with the guidance of the FSF?