From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bill-auger Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium. Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:05:57 -0500 Message-ID: <20190218070557.12fc0471@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> <87lg2f5wqk.fsf@posteo.net> <87k1hz5wh8.fsf@posteo.net> <20190216203933.218dfb67@parabola> <87bm3axcyl.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33813) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gvhhL-0005J5-J0 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:07:00 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gvhhK-00031i-5q for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:06:59 -0500 Received: from golden.birch.relay.mailchannels.net ([23.83.209.73]:21715) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gvhhF-0002vO-M7 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:06:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87bm3axcyl.fsf@elephly.net> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: gnu-linux-libre@nongnu.org Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 23:33:06 +0100 Ricardo wrote: > I don=E2=80=99t feel motivated to apologize to the people involved in Pur= eOS > because I wasn=E2=80=99t around when they were pressured / convinced to d= rop > Chromium. no, but you could have been around - you also could have argued for pureos on their side of the debate, and perhaps won favor for chromium at that time; so that none of us would need to be discussing it today, nor ever again - but unfortunately, it is true, you did not do that - so here we are today, raking this ugly old thing out of the mud once again On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 23:33:06 +0100 Ricardo wrote: > In day to day Guix activities, we don=E2=80=99t ask developers of other > distros that also happen to subscribe to the FSDG to reach consensus > before making project decisions. =20 of course every distro should have complete autonomy, especially for decisions that only pertain to that one distro - i am only considering the most fundamental decisions that obviously affect all distros equally, and reflect upon the integrity of the FSDG itself, such as which software is FSDG-free and which are not (and clarifying why or why not, and ideally, offering specific guidance for acceptably liberating the most common or troublesome ones) - if we can not all agree on that single most central concern to the FSDG, then what exactly is the value of the FSDG anyways? On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 23:33:06 +0100 Ricardo wrote: > You are suggesting that FSDG > distros form a community beyond the sense that they abide by the same > guidelines. I don=E2=80=99t think that=E2=80=99s reflecting reality. It= =E2=80=99s another > thing to discuss if this should be so. yes - awesome!! - that is exactly what i have been proposing and working toward for a long time - in this case, not as just "another thing to discuss"; but it is *the* sole reason that i raised this issue with guix at this time (last september actually[1]) i have repeated it over and over again, that i couldnt care less about the chromium program, specifically - i want to discuss only and exactly this: enticing all FSDG distros to collaborate toward the achievement of common goals and solutions to common problems; as to avoid both redundant efforts and the presenting of conflicting philosophies to users, regarding the nature and essence of "free software" - the chromium program is not itself a fundamental problem, but one, albeit notorious, example of a common problem that affects all FSDG distros, and has been addressed by the group for the purpose of presenting a uniform message regarding it's FSDG status it would be a beautiful thing to have vigorous cross-distro collaboration as a focal point of the FSDG itself, very much in the collaborative spirit of GNU; and i think that most of the distros are already on board with that idea as a worthwhile plan, and have always been participating on the FSDG mailing list under that presumption - last year's re-structuring of the incoming distros community evaluation process was a concrete step in that direction "reality" is only what we make of it - if you see the FSDG as nothing more than a trophy or badge that you earned once upon a time, a milestone that need not be any concerned ever more after, then that is the reality you will have - the FSF does not want to mandate that anyone participate in the on-going group discussions; but it is a very good idea to show that the FSDG distros behave as a community of siblings by, at the very least, presenting a uniform stance on shared freedom issues On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 23:33:06 +0100 Ricardo wrote: > I see no violation of the FSDG here. that is not news, Ricardo - no one sees any obvious licensing violation of the FSDG; not today, nor a year ago, nor five years ago - if there were any known, they could have (and probably would have) been addressed long ago, and maybe we would not be discussing this now - the only clear FSDG problem today is the new one that guix is making for all other distros that are trying to be compliant with the FSDG as it is written, by intentionally doing something that is explicitly against the written recommendation - the "as it is written" part is perhaps dubious; but it is the keystone of a long-standing FSDG anomaly, and guix is in a very good position to help resolve that once and for all, for the benefit of all whether anyone likes it or not, adding chromium into any FSDG distro today, is in direct conflict with that pesky: "what is written" - the solution is almost certainly, that it needs to be re-written; but there is not yet anything to over-write it with - "i see no problem" is clearly not sufficient - we all know it has FSDG problems; and the current wording will remain until someone who cares about chromium offers a convincing liberation procedure to replace it as the FSDG recommendation we are asking for your help with this, for the benefit of all FSDG distros and their users, present and future, because it is only guix that claims to have any new information about chromium, and guix is probably the only distro that wants this program to be considered as FSDG-free badly enough to do anything about it; but all we have seen so far, are sentiments plainly discounting the validity of the request like: "i dont see any problem", "i dont feel compelled to address this", and "sorry, i dont remember how i did it" - not only is that indifference leaving the others to remain in this quagmire that we have been in for years; but pushing this through while knowing that this conflict exists, is making it more uncomfortable than it needs to be going forward, especially if no one from guix plans to help resolve the conflict in a timely manor whether or not guix considers itself to be part of the larger FSDG community, you should realize that we do exist as such, and that this particular action by guix is forcing a wedge into a small, but visible crack in the foundation of FSDG itself; which has negative repercussion on those who would be your allies, and creates a strong point of contention for any new distro that comes along [1]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2018-09/msg00264.html