From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brett Gilio Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium. Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 14:06:43 -0600 Message-ID: <87k1hz5wh8.fsf@posteo.net> 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> Reply-To: Workgroup for fully free GNU/Linux distributions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-reply-to: <87lg2f5wqk.fsf@posteo.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: Workgroup for fully free GNU/Linux distributions Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 28004@debbugs.gnu.org List-Id: guix-devel.gnu.org Brett Gilio writes: > Adonay Felipe Nogueira writes: > >> Em 16/02/2019 12:18, Julie Marchant escreveu: >>> 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 >> >> For what is worth, what I learned with projects that don't follow the >> Open Source Definition (I know that I shouldn't support this term here, >> but I had to mention it) is that they mask their non-compliance behind a >> license. Of course we don't intend to foster open source here, as this >> project, having the goal to provide a package manager that is under the >> GNU project, also aims to create a system distribution that follows the >> GNU FSDG and uses such package manager >> >> 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. >> >> Having a requirement for a package to be first throughly reviewed >> eliminates some of the possibility of having non-free functional data or >> non-distributable non-functional data. It's not a perfect protection >> (since the package in review might have implemented things from other >> works that one of the reviewers might not be aware of). >> >> As I said in a message to these mailing lists, I already started >> reviewing Chromium, although this project is big and I might not have >> the time nor all the skills to do it alone. Since today, I moved the >> review, which was available at [1], to the appropriate Review namespace >> at [2]. >> >> >> [1] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Talk:Chromium >> [2] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Review:Chromium-REV-ID-1 > > Adonay, thank you for taking the initiative here! I think this is a > needed step forward. > > Brett Gilio Also, maybe it would be of some help to involve somebody from the FSF to be a neutral mediator on this process until we come to some reasonable conclusion? Marius, I think you can probably go ahead and push that patch, knowing full well that Bill warned a bug report will be filed against the Guix source tree until such time that an audit concludes or Adonay's suggestion is followed through with. Bill, What do you think here? Brett Gilio