From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bill-auger Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium. Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 20:37:31 -0500 Message-ID: <20190216203731.0069830a@parabola> References: <20190202192023.22087-1-mbakke@fastmail.com> <87k1igpwk8.fsf@dismail.de> <20190203235204.63970587@parabola> <87sgx3mbcq.fsf@gnu.org> <87tvhf5f8d.fsf@dustycloud.org> <20190216030021.374f4c82@parabola> <87va1kav33.fsf@posteo.net> 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: 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 Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:18:58 -0500 Julie wrote: > In justice > systems, we adopt an "innocent until proven guilty" system because you > can't really prove innocence, only guilt. i wondered if someone would bring that up - there is a huge difference with this (and i have already made this clear, BTW) - the default state for copyright is not "innocent" - the default state is "no permission granted" - according to this analogy, software is guilty until proven innocent under the existing copyright laws - that is not something we can decide to re-interpret On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:18:58 -0500 Julie wrote: > As far as I know, and correct > me if I'm wrong here, no one in the entire history of this claim yes they have - the original bug report noted several; and those were said to be fixed On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:18:58 -0500 Julie wrote: > this, though, then it seems to me that the correct action to take > would be to address that issue, if not upstream, then in a fork. i agree - at the very least, i would to see that original bug report closed by the upstream - its continued presence is looms ominously and dubiously