From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adonay Felipe Nogueira Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium. Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 17:47:57 -0200 Message-ID: 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WkCUhBDs1jw4CTmihBRaGZd5GdZGo4fGh" 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 , 28004@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org List-Id: guix-devel.gnu.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --WkCUhBDs1jw4CTmihBRaGZd5GdZGo4fGh Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="ZGoqyXMekURahp4Ltq5jAWl9AN8xH5OIQ"; protected-headers="v1" From: Adonay Felipe Nogueira To: Workgroup for fully free GNU/Linux distributions , 28004@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium. 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> In-Reply-To: --ZGoqyXMekURahp4Ltq5jAWl9AN8xH5OIQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 covere= d 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 --ZGoqyXMekURahp4Ltq5jAWl9AN8xH5OIQ-- --WkCUhBDs1jw4CTmihBRaGZd5GdZGo4fGh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlxoaPcACgkQyNbhUgHunaGC6wEA52vPsGWb/AGW8hNkA6N3t4qw VTBk9J25w3dIITvfsgoA/AxBDiog0W4SxG6L3eU07S2rg9VRD61bCoM+M+L6Hjjq =WjWt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WkCUhBDs1jw4CTmihBRaGZd5GdZGo4fGh--