Hello licensing team and gnu-linux-libre, first: thank you all for your commitment!
please I have some questions and some comment on the subject I'm following the guix-de...@gnu.org mailing list (I'm not a maintainer) and in this thread http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2019-02/msg00000.html there was some controversy on the inclusion of a patched chromium version in Guix [1] questions arosed in this discussion are not specific to Guix nor to chromium but - in my view - involves the entire compliance process and periodic reviev in particular Bill Auger in this message http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2019-02/msg00028.html wrote some interesting comments: bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> writes: [...] > about a year ago, the FSDG review process and criteria for endorsement > of new distros AFAIK documented in this page: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Incoming_distros shouldn't that page be linked in the official GNU FSDG Guidelines page [2] so that the endorsement process is clear to everyone reading the Guidelines? I already knew GNU FSDG Guidelines page but I was not aware of "Incoming distros" page since Saturday > was updated - the new FSDG criteria checklist for reference [3] > for community review that was adopted includes the following essential > criteria: > > "Programs commonly known to have freedom issues are liberated or > excluded" the "Sample Checklist" section on [3] states: "[...] The text of each criteria in the checklist table is a hyper-link to the relevant section of the FSDG. [...]" but that is not true, since the criteria cited above ("Programs commonly known to have...") links to a resource _outside_ the official GNU FSDG, **extending** it with a new criteria my question is: is that "Software blacklist" [4] a mandatory criteria for GNU FSDG? if it has to be a criteria, shouldn't be better to update the official GNU FSDG page? my opinion is that the "Software blacklist" [4] is a valuable *tool* for evaluators but should _not_ be considered as part of GNU FSDG itself > that criteria is a link to the "software that does not respect the > FSDG" wiki page, which includes an entry for 'chromium-browser' (the > debian package name) with the liberation procedure being specified as: > > "Remove program/package Use GNU IceCat, or equivalent" if the "Software blacklist" is to be considered mandatory, then every distro including a blacklisted entry should be considered "non compliant" IMHO the evaluation process should be more articulated than a check on a blacklist; the case of "ungoogled-chrome in Guix" is a nice example of the shortcoming of this approach actually the FSDG Reviev Guide [5] clearly states: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- You can do a similar check to see if any of the packages listed on the List of software that does not respect the Free System Distribution Guidelines are included in the distribution. Don't assume that there's a problem just because the distribution includes a package named on that page, though: a lot of the entries suggest solutions that help the software comply with the guidelines without removing it completely. You'll have to check yourself to see whether or not the free distribution has taken those steps. Usually, that's as simple as comparing version numbers. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- so IMHO including "Software blacklist" [4] in the checklist [3] is in direct contradiction with the above statement > that created an uncomfortable pressure point for any distro that wants > to distribute this browser - according to the literal reading of that > criteria, the question is precisely this: should the "Software blacklist" [4] be "literally read"? [...] > it was also agreed upon at that time, that the FSDG criteria should be > applicable to all currently endorsed distros in perpetuity, so ... so, again: is really "Software blacklist" an FSDG criteria? [...] > if chromium enters the guix repo it will almost surely be followed by a > freedom bug report (which per the current FSDG criteria, would be fully > justifiable) i feel some clarification in gnu-linux-libre is needed on this process and on the status of "Software blacklist" [4] page [...] thanks for listening! Giovanni P.S.: please consider that this interesting summary on chromium status: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Review:Chromium-REV-ID-1 is not referenced in [4] while IMHO it should be [1] this is the specific Guix issue http://issues.guix.info/issue/28004 [2] https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html [3] https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Template:FSDG_Checklist [4] https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:FreedSoftware#Related_pages "Software blacklist" redirects to https://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines [5] https://libreplanet.org/wiki/FSDG_Review_Guide -- Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera IT Infrastructures
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
