Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

[Julie Marchant <onpon4@riseup.net>]

On 02/16/2019 09:42 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> Julie -
> 
> that was all just a long winded re-statement of the "we should always
> trust the upstream blindly" argument - i think the Great Wise Old Gnu
> would conclude that is a very unwise general policy; and especially
> unwise when that particular upstream is well-known for its code being
> non-FSDG free

Just to repeat the disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer and none of this is
legal advice.

I don't see why you're bringing "trust" into this. I've been trying to
argue that it has nothing to do with the issue. If the copyright holder
of a work says you're allowed to use it under X conditions, you are.
There's no "trust" there. You can't say that someone is allowed to do X
and then claim later that they weren't *really* allowed to do X.

I feel like I already gave this analogy at some point, but it's like
your "trust" that Walmart permits you to enter the store and shop. You
don't demand proof that you're allowed to shop at Walmart; it's implied
by the fact that the doors are unlocked and the building is enticing you
to go in. Similarly, Walmart can't just retroactively claim you weren't
really allowed in, even though you obviously were, and have you arrested
for trespassing. No, because of the conditions, if a Walmart wants to
keep you out, you have to be specifically told that you're not welcome.
They can't just call the police one day and have you arrested for
trespassing. Ergo, you don't need "trust".

The same sort of thing would apply to a licensing situation like this.
If the Chromium team says that Chromium is under the Modified BSD
License, then it *is* under the Modified BSD License, unless a
particular file says otherwise. The same applies to ungoogled-chromium
and its maintainer.

-- 
Julie Marchant
http://onpon4.github.io

Encrypt your emails with GnuPG:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org