From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brett Gilio Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium. Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 14:01:07 -0600 Message-ID: <87lg2f5wqk.fsf@posteo.net> 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 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: Workgroup for fully free GNU/Linux distributions Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 28004@debbugs.gnu.org List-Id: guix-devel.gnu.org Adonay Felipe Nogueira writes: > Em 16/02/2019 12:18, Julie Marchant escreveu: >> libre? The only argument I've seen on the matter is the way copyright >> works, but Chromium is under the Modified BSD License according to >> documentation I was able to find. If some files are not actually covered > > For what is worth, what I learned with projects that don't follow the > Open Source Definition (I know that I shouldn't support this term here, > but I had to mention it) is that they mask their non-compliance behind a > license. Of course we don't intend to foster open source here, as this > project, having the goal to provide a package manager that is under the > GNU project, also aims to create a system distribution that follows the > GNU FSDG and uses such package manager > > If the norm would be to only check the licenses, then we would have for > example, taken ages to figure out that the kernel source files from > upstream of GNU Linux-libre was/is non-free. > > Having a requirement for a package to be first throughly reviewed > eliminates some of the possibility of having non-free functional data or > non-distributable non-functional data. It's not a perfect protection > (since the package in review might have implemented things from other > works that one of the reviewers might not be aware of). > > As I said in a message to these mailing lists, I already started > reviewing Chromium, although this project is big and I might not have > the time nor all the skills to do it alone. Since today, I moved the > review, which was available at [1], to the appropriate Review namespace > at [2]. > > > [1] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Talk:Chromium > [2] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Review:Chromium-REV-ID-1 Adonay, thank you for taking the initiative here! I think this is a needed step forward. Brett Gilio