From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Amin Bandali Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium. Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 11:20:11 -0500 Message-ID: <8736onyabo.fsf@aminb.org> 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> <878syfwx59.fsf@fastmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <878syfwx59.fsf@fastmail.com> (Marius Bakke's message of "Sat, 16 Feb 2019 16:50:10 +0100") 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: Marius Bakke Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, gnu-linux-libre@nongnu.org Marius, if I understand correctly, you have summarized your patch with respect to the following two issues: 1. Your patch strips out parts of Chromium that are /clearly/ nonfree and proprietary (e.g. unrar per your example), and 2. Your patch addresses (or tries to) privacy concerns. But as far as I can tell, you have not addressed the concerns shared by Bill and others about the situation with files in the Chromium codebase that don=E2=80=99t have a clear license. So I=E2=80=99ll try to repeat/rep= hrase their question(s): does your patch address the files with unclear license? Does it strip out those files that don=E2=80=99t have a clear license? Can= we be certain that the Chromium built from your patch explicitly *only* contained free software? Best, amin