From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Marusich Subject: Re: wrapping up the Newmoon Browser package Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 17:32:12 +0100 Message-ID: <877eq2eos3.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20180320134737.6jb7ux6hx24zyxh6@abyayala> <871sgbfjb0.fsf@gmail.com> <20180323121425.mu5lmc7iyzs2kzjz@abyayala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47839) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ezPc6-0004Sg-6S for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:32:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ezPc3-0001G6-Eq for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:32:20 -0400 Received: from mail-pl0-x22e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22e]:37124) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ezPc3-0001Fo-7x for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:32:19 -0400 Received: by mail-pl0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id w12-v6so7739959plp.4 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 09:32:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from garuda.local ([2601:602:9d02:4725:6495:ba21:1ebe:620a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o28sm22338185pfk.17.2018.03.23.09.32.15 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 23 Mar 2018 09:32:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180323121425.mu5lmc7iyzs2kzjz@abyayala> (ng0@n0.is's message of "Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:14:25 +0000") 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: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ng0 writes: >> As far as the FSDG is concerned, I don't think this matters either way. > > Huh. So this page would be okay in FSDG? Interesting. > I object to its content, but changes are trivial to make. I intended that statement as my own personal opinion, not as any sort of official determination. Let's discuss this and make sure we choose the right approach. To that end, I'm curious: can you share more about why you believe that we should change the home page? Because we follow the FSDG, we definitely should do something like that if including the default home page without changes would in fact cause us to violate the FSDG. That said, even if leaving the default home page in would not cause us to violate the FSDG, we may still choose to change it if there is a good reason to do so. For example, hypothetically, if the web page's default home page contained malware, then surely that would be a problem. > Thanks for taking a look at this :) My pleasure! Thank you for taking the time to work on it. =2D-=20 Chris --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEy/WXVcvn5+/vGD+x3UCaFdgiRp0FAlq1LAwACgkQ3UCaFdgi Rp2a9RAAxrqSkrfk5NF1h7joNHjpTfxZp6WIo3kqSf88FFj+bI7ICSoba3DE91SO RngnldsdZW/BPSM3L0AzCukd0NGKclO8Xfx0Z3g8e6mzMWQV2PjhZ50pwuo8Msrr NK06Zwm4iCpl1TAld+Y0XTih8JlYkIrqPG9wdJxPb4iG9AtpqsLBfeKB0UewA8T6 jV3ieUTKhjjeqWNvR+Ko6uEuKqG3IH1kdc9zDdvuRjEdn/P7Mzc83z5YsAvAzHU6 s6/njaIjhgSv8Sujp+TieKJx/PpowVgPFbt84K6bjR3Md6IHKxBZa5cVt36dXBSF KNEjAPSboThTYGnVKNnUgZ29LeLgtk4tiE8nhg375GvrmdeEavtFpYxDviuF65i+ xnW91/Zn1ZHBketNajnbRwj3GBJIFzroaPcFd6tsq1pJdSL6mZGzuG1Ir3ChZuIE q/IIlC3E/NJGtoeI2z0taQHEP87YqMaXqsoHT92Cl1ncAqYhRWPs0q3sxFaJmUS9 D/J2qDFrBi53fnazAEnY9lBrT6EU0wx8Mh2jYd2i91bFCmhst5n0FAxA98cUsbqc m5o5dAh0B80VxXICihFj60itmmaGcO2OjSRT/gP3FNOf8+6I5bUhjIA1cS8d8xSe l5ObWInWrLAL7HWRGvr1k1AMEpSTP+qLGgx/T21R3q6oqb5rPkM= =3vK0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--