From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45802) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gqfaK-00066J-GA for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2019 09:50:57 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gqfYU-0001V2-Do for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2019 09:49:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:58995) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gqfYT-0001Uf-VL for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2019 09:49:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gqfYT-0005Ug-P1 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2019 09:49:01 -0500 Subject: [bug#28004] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium. Resent-Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 09:47:54 -0500 From: bill-auger Message-ID: <20190204094754.449ea14d@parabola> In-Reply-To: <20190204134638.GA8269@jasmine.lan> References: <20190202192023.22087-1-mbakke@fastmail.com> <87k1igpwk8.fsf@dismail.de> <20190203235204.63970587@parabola> <20190204134638.GA8269@jasmine.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: 28004@debbugs.gnu.org On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:46:38 +0100 Leo wrote: > If you have a concrete example of a Chromium component that is not > free software please list it in a reply-all this email. this is not a discussion list i will apologize in advance for this length reply - i did not CC this list if you demand evidence you need look no further than the upstream itself - the upstream developers can not verify for themselves that their program is freely licensed; as evidenced by the 10 year old bug report on this issue that is still open https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=28291 the default copy permissions for every copyrighted work is "none" - in order for that work be be set free, the author must very explicitly label it as such, and try their very best to ensure that their formal statement of permission follows along with any copies of it - because if that permission is missing, or difficult to locate or to comprehend, there is no reason to assume the work is freely distributable i would hope that i would not need to explain that to a member of GNU the burden of proof is not upon the one who claims that the default case applies, it is upon the one who claims that some special case applies and anyway - let me please repeat this one more time - i have no desire to defend nor condemn this particular program - this has been discussed ad nauseam for many years - all that i intend today is to entice the guix developers to communicate with the other FSDG distros and the FSF to reach a uniform consensus on the matter - rather than to see guix choose to distribute it, while all other FSDG distros are in agreement not to distribute it