Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

[Julie Marchant]

On 02/03/2019 11:52 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> re: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-02/msg00009.html
> 
> i would like to remind readers of the guix-devel list that it was
> discussed some months ago, why no FSDG distros currently distribute
> chromium[1] - it appeared at that time, that most people in that
> discussion were in agreement that chromium should not be included in
> guix; and marius was instead hosting it in a private repo, as not to
> taint the main guix repos with dubious software - has there been a
> notable break-through since then?
> 
> what is the evidence for this claim that this guix package is "free
> software only"? - what does "Marks beautiful computed-origin-method" do
> toward that end? - if a procedure for liberating any chromium-derived
> software has been discovered, this would be a marvelous accomplishment
> and very good news indeed, of which people outside of the guix dev team
> would also be interested to learn
> 
> if the guix team has discovered some new information or has concocted a
> viable liberation recipe for chromium or any of it's offspring, then i
> hope that, for the benefit of all fellow Fosstopians, someone would
> present that information to the FSDG mailing list for review and
> discussion - it would be extra neighborly if that happened *before*
> offering this program to guix users, while fully knowing that the other
> FSDG distros are still intentionally suppressing it in solidarity
> 
> again, i am totally indifferent as to whether anyone uses chromium or
> not - my only interest in this is that i would like to strengthen the
> FSDG by convincing FSDG distros to communicate and collaborate with each
> other, and to achieve consensus about common issues such as this, that
> clearly affect all distros equally; so that no one is compelled to ask
> "why does guixsd endorse that popular program if other FSDG distros
> reject it on principal?" - it is difficult enough to explain to users
> why these programs are rejected in the first place; but at least the
> way things are now, we can say that all FSDG distros are in agreement to
> err on the conservative side until a satisfactory liberation procedure
> is found and documented - currently, the documented liberation
> procedure is: "Remove program/package. Use GNU IceCat, or
> equivalent"[2] - if there is a better candidate procedure now, let us
> get it onto the table for discussion
> 
> i would like to consider all FSDG distros as being part of a larger
> federation, sharing the same primary goals; but we cant all be reading
> all of the dev lists - let us communicate whenever applicable, in the
> common venue that exists for that purpose[3] - i tried enticing the
> folks on the guix team to do that previously - if there is indeed
> something new to announce regarding chromium's dubious FSDG status,
> please elect someone from guix to do so now - this would be very
> interesting news to the readers of that list, and your effort and/or
> accomplishment would be sincerely applauded - other FSDG distros would
> be happy (and some quite eager) to re-instate any of these
> chromium-derived packages if a consensus could be reached that any of
> them could be distributed 100% freely; but if all distros are to decide
> for themselves what is freely distributable and what is not, without
> evidence and without discussing it with the other FSDG distros nor the
> FSF, then the FSDG loses its teeth, and we all look wishy-washy and
> flakey on that, the main, central FSDG concern: which programs are
> freely distributable and which are not
> 
> 
> [1]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2018-09/msg00264.html
> [2]:
> https://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines#chromium-browser
> [3]: https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-linux-libre

Sorry, I didn't notice that this thread was on multiple lists, so when I
hit "Reply List" it only went to the GNU-linux-libre list. Sending a
copy to the other lists; sorry for the messiness.

I'm not sure if I've mentioned it on the GNU-linux-libre list before,
but I have never seen any actual evidence of the current version of
Chromium containing proprietary components.

It's an unreasonable standard to demand proof that programs are libre.
That's an impossible thing to prove. If someone points out, as I have
many times, "I have looked through Chromium's code and not found a
single proprietary program," someone can simply say that they didn't
look hard enough.

That LibrePlanet page, by the way, is not evidence of Chromium
containing proprietary components. It claims such, but the only evidence
provided is a copyright file that clearly indicates a libre license, and
a bug report about not passing a license checking script, which I might
add is also not proof of any program being proprietary. Not to mention,
this is from over eight years ago. Should distro maintainers also take
the outdated recommendation to remove Project: Starfighter from that
page at face value, despite the fact that I released a completely libre
version almost four years ago? The point is, that's a wiki page
sporadically maintained by volunteers. It's a possible starting point
(though to be honest I'm not so sure it's even useful for that), but not
an indication of the GNU FSDG gold standard, so to speak.

-- 
Julie Marchant
http://onpon4.github.io

Encrypt your emails with GnuPG:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

[bill-auger]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 07:26:59 -0500 Julie wrote:
> I have never seen any actual evidence of the current version of
> Chromium containing proprietary components.
> It's an unreasonable standard to demand proof that programs are libre.

julie, that is like saying "i dont see any evidence on that new car
that says: i do not belong to you" - would you then conclude that you
can drive it home? - i think you would prefer to see the explicit
evidence proving that you do in fact have the right to do that

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

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

i will say again though, that my main intention was not to make any
claims neither for nor against this particular program; but to entice
the guix devs to discuss it on the FSDG mailing list for the benefit
of the others who are also interested

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

[Marius Bakke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1597 bytes --]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi bill-auger,
>
> bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> skribis:
>
>> re: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-02/msg00009.html
>>
>> i would like to remind readers of the guix-devel list that it was
>> discussed some months ago, why no FSDG distros currently distribute
>> chromium[1] - it appeared at that time, that most people in that
>> discussion were in agreement that chromium should not be included in
>> guix; and marius was instead hosting it in a private repo, as not to
>> taint the main guix repos with dubious software - has there been a
>> notable break-through since then?
>
> It’s not entirely clear to me what the problems are, to be honest.
> Marius listed specific issues that were addressed by the patches; others
> then pointed out at additional issues that ungoogled-chromium fixes,
> which Marius took into account; what’s left now?

Indeed, the only real breakthrough is that we now have a script to
create an Ungooglified source tarball with all unnecessary third_party
components removed.  The compressed tarball is smaller than that of
IceCat and takes up around 2.1 GiB uncompressed, roughly 1GiB of which
is third_party stuff.

That leaves "just" over 1GiB of source code to audit (assuming my
third_party audit is correct).  I haven't been able to find any
proprietary parts in first party code, and am convinced that the
remaining third_party components are free, hence this patch.

I am of course happy to help other FSDG distributions liberate their
Chromium too.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

[Adam Van Ymeren]

On February 16, 2019 9:18:58 AM EST, Julie Marchant <onpon4@riseup.net> wrote:
>On 02/16/2019 05:25 AM, Brett Gilio wrote:
>> I agree with everything Bill said in his message, and I heavily
>> encourage all of us lurking in this mailing list with an opinion on
>the
>> matter to please state your opinion on this controversy and the Guix
>> relationship to the FSDG.
>> 
>> The free software guidelines are first and foremost put up by the
>free
>> software community by what is specified to be important to the values
>of
>> free software. This needs to be addressed sooner than later, because
>the
>> act of solidarity on the part of the community here is a tremendously
>> crucial and singular event.
>> 
>> I'd like to see the offerings of free software to grow, and include
>> chromium if chromium has a reasonable method of liberation. But there
>is
>> yet to be a complete audit to identify the problems. We can not rely
>> solely on speculation, so lets get to the bottom of this once and for
>> all.
>
>I think that assuming Chromium is no good until something no good is
>found in it is a wrong approach.
>
>I don't understand what's so complicated about this issue. In justice
>systems, we adopt an "innocent until proven guilty" system because you
>can't really prove innocence, only guilt. Would it not make sense to
>use
>this tried and tested system when evaluating whether or not a program
>is
>libre? The only argument I've seen on the matter is the way copyright
>works, but Chromium is under the Modified BSD License according to
>documentation I was able to find. If some files are not actually
>covered
>by this license, or some other license, it would be very easy to simply
>point to the file. As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong here,
>no one in the entire history of this claim about Chromium being
>proprietary has ever done so. If I'm wrong about this, though, then it
>seems to me that the correct action to take would be to address that
>issue, if not upstream, then in a fork.

This issue documents some chromium efforts to update to copyright on all files.  I haven't looked at the source myself yet but this bug suggests that there are still hundreds to thousand's of files with no clear license.

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=28291

Someone should run their check licenses script again on the latest codebase and see what it reports.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

[Amin Bandali]

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’t have a clear license.  So I’ll try to repeat/rephrase their
question(s): does your patch address the files with unclear license?
Does it strip out those files that don’t have a clear license?  Can we
be certain that the Chromium built from your patch explicitly *only*
contained free software?

Best,
amin

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

[Clément Lassieur]

> Since there have been no coherent arguments against this browser in
> the two weeks since it was submitted, I plan to push this patch
> *tomorrow*.

Hi Marius,

Thank you again for your excellent work.  I'm looking forward to seeing
it pushed!

Clément

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

[Alex Griffin]

On Sat, Feb 16, 2019, at 7:48 PM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> If the norm would be to only check the licenses, then we would have for
> example, taken ages to figure out that the kernel source files from
> upstream of GNU Linux-libre was/is non-free.

The Linux kernel was included in GNU distributions until a concrete problem was identified, exactly the opposite of what is being demanded here. AFAICT Marius has expended quite a bit of effort to resolve every known problem with the package, and what is left is literally just FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).

-- 
Alex Griffin

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

[bill-auger]

Alex -

you are really mis-characterizing the situation here - this really has
very little to do with chromium specifically - the problem is when some
FSDG distro decide for themselves that *any* program qualifies as "free
software" when the others have agreed that it does not - this plants the
seeds for an uncomfortable family fued which could be best avoided
i dont know that anyone really cares enough about this browser to
waste their time spreading FUD about it - we just want everyone to
agree whether it is "free software" or it is not, and for all FSDG
distros to endorse or OR reject as a unified group - whichever the case
may actually be is not central to the discussion

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

[Ricardo Wurmus]

bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> writes:

> if we do not FIRSTLY apologize to pureos for asking them to remove
> chromium and publicly endorse them to re-instate it, then endorsing it
> into guix would be hypocritical and shameful

I find this use of “we” confusing.

I don’t feel motivated to apologize to the people involved in PureOS
because I wasn’t around when they were pressured / convinced to drop
Chromium.  I don’t know if any of the regular Guix contributors have.

In day to day Guix activities, we don’t ask developers of other distros
that also happen to subscribe to the FSDG to reach consensus before
making project decisions.  You are suggesting that FSDG distros form a
community beyond the sense that they abide by the same guidelines.  I
don’t think that’s reflecting reality.  It’s another thing to discuss if
this should be so.

With regards to the Chromium upstream bug report about the license
script and the suggestion that upstream doesn’t know what license their
code has, I’m satisfied with this comment:

   https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=28291#c31

The script appears to be not very successful in detecting valid license
declarations in third party code.  FWIW, in my opinion it would be
unreasonable to further delay Marius’s work from becoming part of Guix.
I see no violation of the FSDG here.

--
Ricardo

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

[bill-auger]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 23:33:06 +0100 Ricardo wrote:
> I don’t feel motivated to apologize to the people involved in PureOS
> because I wasn’t around when they were pressured / convinced to drop
> 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’t ask developers of other
> distros that also happen to subscribe to the FSDG to reach consensus
> before making project decisions.  

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’t think that’s reflecting reality.  It’s 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

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

[Hartmut Goebel]

Am 18.02.19 um 13:05 schrieb bill-auger:
> no, but you could have been around -


InvalidArgementError

-- 
Regards
Hartmut Goebel

| Hartmut Goebel          | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com               |
| www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

bill-auger wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 23:33:06 +0100 Ricardo wrote:
>> I don’t feel motivated to apologize to the people involved in 
>> PureOS
>> because I wasn’t around when they were pressured / convinced to 
>> drop
>> 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

If this is the quality of argument that ‘won’ over PureOS, it's 
blaming Guix/Ricardo for not being around to stop others from 
being bullied.

Kind regards,

T G-R

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

[bill-auger]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:22:20 +0100 Simon wrote:
> seems to be shifting to a meta rather than about the state of
> chromium itself

simon - i would like to explain that the reason for that confusion, is
because this thread got cross-posted on multiple mailing lists

the chromium browser is the topic of the thread on the guix mailing
list - but that "meta" divergence as you described it, is entirely the
purpose of the FSDG workgroup - the central concern on that list
today, is not chromium itself, but is enticing guix to discuss what has
been done to liberate chromium with the group; so that the recipe can
be peer reviewed and possibly be recommended to other distros

the folks reading the FSDG list would not describe that as a
divergence, but as the latest attempt to make progress on a long
standing problem that affects all FSDG distros equally