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
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
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 09:06:20 -0500 Julie wrote:
> So... the same thing as Linux.
yes, much the same situation as linux, but with the very important
difference, that we have people like the good folks at linux-libre who
are constantly watching linux for new undesirables entering it, and
those
the difference there is that chromium is not one piece of software
written by one person or even one modestly sized team - it is a
conglomeration of perhaps 100s of different projects written by perhaps
1000s of authors - for some files, it may not actually be known who the
author is, never mind
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 14:34:38 -0200 Alexandre wrote:
> Maybe you have actually completed the steps that were missing in the
> auditing or Chromium to conclude it's Free, or at least some of the
> remaining tasks can be checked off.
that would be something wonderful, indeed
nothing would please me
Julie -
that was all just a long winded re-statement of the "we should always
trust the upstream blindly" argument - i think the Great Wise Old Gnu
would conclude that is a very unwise general policy; and especially
unwise when that particular upstream is well-known for its code being
non-FSDG
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 17:33:21 +0100 Marius wrote:
> Do we have
> any reason to distrust what's written in the LICENSE file?
based on your own account, you very explicitly distrust the code
released by those authors in terms of privacy - so why would you
implicitly trust it in terms of licensing
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
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 14:06:43 -0600 Brett wrote:
> I think you can probably go ahead and push that patch
> Bill, What do you think here?
i think that would be intentionally creating exactly the same
unpleasant situation as the pureos bug report that stood for many
months, unaddressed
i think
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:18:58 -0500 Julie wrote:
> In justice
> systems, we adopt an "innocent until proven guilty" system because you
> can't really prove innocence, only guilt.
i wondered if someone would bring that up -
there is a huge difference with this (and i have already made this
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 23:34:45 +0100 Ludovic wrote:
> It’s not entirely clear to me what the problems are, to be honest.
On Wed, 06 Feb 2019 22:04:59 +0100 Marius wrote:
> Indeed, the only real breakthrough is that we now have a script to
> create an Ungooglified source tarball with all
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
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 02:46:30 -0500 Ineiev wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 11:52:04PM -0500, bill-auger wrote:
> > the main, central FSDG concern: which programs are
> > freely distributable and which are not
>
> I don't think the main FSDG concern is which programs are f
re: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-02/msg9.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
On Fri, 07 Dec 2018 20:46:27 -0500 Mark wrote:
> I copied the video to audio-video.gnu.org. It's now available here:
> https://audio-video.gnu.org/video/misc/2018-11__Everyday_use_of_GNU_Guix__Chris_Marusich__SeaGL.webm
there is still an open task for this on savannah - should the task be
marked
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 15:57:04 +0100 Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> The Internet Archive is not in the business of archiving software, but
> it’d be interesting to see if it archives tarballs that people put on
> “random” web sites
FWIW, The Internet Archive is not *in the business* of *anything* - it
is
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 22:47:29 -0400 bill-auger wrote:
> if non-technical people are ever going
> to try guixsd, then a fully graphical liveISO X desktop environment
> with a mouse-centric installer will be essential
i should qualify that statement as well to note that a graphical
packag
FWIW, i will add that the bulk of effort required to have a pretty
user-friendly mouse-centric installer for guixsd is not with the
installer itself, but in making a liveISO that boots a graphical
environment - i would not consider ncurses to be "graphical" and most
casual users would not either -
FWIW, that reads to me like: "this program is extremely brittle and
unfit for distribution in any distro - here, take our blob instead"
perhaps guix is in a unique position to accommodate such constrained
dependency requirements; but such caveat warnings are indicative of a
project that is still
would actually be within the scope of
feasibility
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 03:23:51 +0200 Marius wrote:
> bill-auger writes:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 21:08:42 +0200 Marius wrote:
> > > It seems to me using "Ungoogled-Chromium" remediates Lukes
> > > concerns
> >
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:11:50 +0200 Andy wrote:
> Are you aware of any concrete issue that has been raised
look no further than the original 10 year old bug report that was never
closed - that is enough "concrete" for my sensibilities - it plainly
demonstrates that even the chromium developers are
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 21:08:42 +0200 Marius wrote:
> Can you elaborate on what exactly the issue is? I am aware that
> Chromium bundles non-free sources
> That leaves "first party" source files. Admittedly I haven't audited
> all of those other than superficial grepping. Do you know whether
>
regarding the recent proposal of introducing chromium into guix; i have
done a lot of research and participated in much discussion regarding
it's fitness regarding the FSDG; and i am quite surprised to see it so
much as suggest into guix
for the benefit of anyone who does not not know, the
23 matches
Mail list logo
