From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adam Van Ymeren Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium. Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 10:37:30 -0500 Message-ID: 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> 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]:50230) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gv22T-0002ul-Fv for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 10:38:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gv22S-0007Pt-GR for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 10:38:01 -0500 Received: from mail2.vany.ca ([142.54.190.254]:57868) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gv22Q-0007GA-NW for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 10:38:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: 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, Julie Marchant , Workgroup for fully free GNU/Linux distributions , Brett Gilio , bill-auger On February 16, 2019 9:18:58 AM EST, Julie Marchant = 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=2E >>=20 >> 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=2E 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=2E >>=20 >> I'd like to see the offerings of free software to grow, and include >> chromium if chromium has a reasonable method of liberation=2E But there >is >> yet to be a complete audit to identify the problems=2E We can not rely >> solely on speculation, so lets get to the bottom of this once and for >> all=2E > >I think that assuming Chromium is no good until something no good is >found in it is a wrong approach=2E > >I don't understand what's so complicated about this issue=2E In justice >systems, we adopt an "innocent until proven guilty" system because you >can't really prove innocence, only guilt=2E 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=2E 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=2E 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=2E 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=2E This issue documents some chromium efforts to update to copyright on all f= iles=2E I haven't looked at the source myself yet but this bug suggests th= at there are still hundreds to thousand's of files with no clear license=2E https://bugs=2Echromium=2Eorg/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=3D28291 Someone should run their check licenses script again on the latest codebas= e and see what it reports=2E