[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

From: Adam Van Ymeren
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 10:37:30 -0500
User-agent: K-9 Mail for Android

On February 16, 2019 9:18:58 AM EST, Julie Marchant <address@hidden> 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
>> matter to please state your opinion on this controversy and the Guix
>> relationship to the FSDG.
>> The free software guidelines are first and foremost put up by the
>> software community by what is specified to be important to the values
>> free software. This needs to be addressed sooner than later, because
>> act of solidarity on the part of the community here is a tremendously
>> crucial and singular event.
>> I'd like to see the offerings of free software to grow, and include
>> chromium if chromium has a reasonable method of liberation. But there
>> yet to be a complete audit to identify the problems. We can not rely
>> solely on speculation, so lets get to the bottom of this once and for
>> all.
>I think that assuming Chromium is no good until something no good is
>found in it is a wrong approach.
>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. Would it not make sense to
>this tried and tested system when evaluating whether or not a program
>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
>by this license, or some other license, it would be very easy to simply
>point to the file. 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. 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.

This issue documents some chromium efforts to update to copyright on all files. 
 I haven't looked at the source myself yet but this bug suggests that there are 
still hundreds to thousand's of files with no clear license.

Someone should run their check licenses script again on the latest codebase and 
see what it reports.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]