On 2/16/19 8:39 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> 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 that IF this is the proper course of action, then we
> should apologize to pureos for asking them to remove it last year
> 
> but let me rephrase that more plainly:
> 
> 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
> 
> 

>From this thread it seems like there were some legitimate issues that
the people at Guix have now addressed. Isn't this more a situation of
possibly changed circumstances?
-- 
Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
Licensing & Compliance Manager
Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone +1-617-542-5942
Fax +1-617-542-2652 ex. 56

Reply via email to