From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bill-auger Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium. Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 02:43:30 -0500 Message-ID: <20190217024330.65169c55@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> <20190216203731.0069830a@parabola> <8517fe0f-4bff-6f1e-8bee-556212a9c279@riseup.net> <20190216214255.3d7edc8d@parabola> <6b742589-eaf4-abf7-3ebf-29d503aeee24@riseup.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: <6b742589-eaf4-abf7-3ebf-29d503aeee24@riseup.net> 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 the difference there is that chromium is not one piece of software written by one person or even one modestly sized team - it is a conglomeration of perhaps 100s of different projects written by perhaps 1000s of authors - for some files, it may not actually be known who the author is, never mind which license they chose, or when - the word "trust" comes into play there, because it is not clear that any one single person on the chromium team can honestly account for everything in the code-base, much less to authoritatively vouch for all of the authors and various licensing it is a more reasonable argument to make for projects with a much, much fewer number of files and many, many fewer devs; but i think a program this size is far beyond the benefit of reasonable doubt - and, of course, on the other hand, if the project had many fewer files and many fewer devs, then a comprehensive audit would not be as absurdly difficult - so i think that is a moot point in this case per your analogy, this is more like the owners of one building giving you permission to go anywhere in the city, because they believe that every other building in the city shares their trespassing policy - though, they can not themselves, demonstrate that they have precise knowledge of the exact number of buildings in the city, nor who their owners are, nor their owners' trespassing policies o/c someone could probably raise exactly the same doubts about mozilla - luckily for us though, we are not aware of any, and so are not yet so uncomfortably compelled to address them most importantly, i personally dont care to argue for nor against chromium - i just want all FSDG distros to agree on how it should be treated, regardless of what that entails if we can not all agree on how to interpret the FSDG, and apply it uniformly to all distro, then the FSDG endorsement has no value and the FSDG work-group serves no meaningful purpose to the world - we may as well just go our own separate ways, and satisfy our own individual fancies that is what is truly at stake here - not this particular: "yet another web browser"