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
18.02.2019, 14:44, "Tobias Geerinckx-Rice"
:
> 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
Hi Tobias,
I've been reading this conversation from the outside but noticed
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 12:16:41 +0100
Gábor Boskovits wrote:
> It seems to me, that there is a whole bunch of people interested in
> this, but due to lack of resources or for some other reasons nothing
> is really happening. Do you know any we we could help getting this
> resolved?
This is a very
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 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
bill-auger 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
Julie Marchant writes:
> 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.
I agree with Julie's point here. The fear that "there might be
something nonfree in
On 02/17/2019 02:43 AM, bill-auger wrote:
> 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
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 02/16/2019 09:42 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> 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
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 02/16/2019 08:37 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:18:58 -0500 Julie wrote:
> yes they have - the original bug report noted several; and those were
> said to be fixed
Ah, perfect. Then the problem is solved, no? Those issues, as you say,
were fixed by the Chromium team (according
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 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
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
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
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
Marius,
On 2019-02-16 5:33 PM, Marius Bakke wrote:
[...]
>
> Can you point out one or more files with an unclear license? Do we have
> any reason to distrust what's written in the LICENSE file?
>
I don’t have a direct example of one such file off top of my head, but
looking at the large
> 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
Alexandre Oliva writes:
> On Feb 16, 2019, Marius Bakke wrote:
>
>> Despite years of searching, I have not found any proprietary parts in
>> first party code!
>
> Could you please summarize what you did in your searching?
>
> Maybe you have actually completed the steps that were missing in the
On Feb 16, 2019, Marius Bakke wrote:
> Despite years of searching, I have not found any proprietary parts in
> first party code!
Could you please summarize what you did in your searching?
Maybe you have actually completed the steps that were missing in the
auditing or Chromium to conclude it's
Amin,
Amin Bandali writes:
> 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
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
bill-auger writes:
> 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
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
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
Em 04/02/2019 02:52, bill-auger escreveu:
> 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,
On 02/07/2019 06:52 PM, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> Hi bill-auger,
>>
>> bill-auger skribis:
>>
>>> 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
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hi bill-auger,
>
> bill-auger skribis:
>
>> 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
>>
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 05:56:56AM -0500, bill-auger wrote:
> 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
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 02/03/2019 11:52 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> 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,
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 11:52:04PM -0500, bill-auger wrote:
> 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
I don't think the main FSDG concern is which programs are
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 freely
> distributable,
39 matches
Mail list logo
