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 think the main FSDG concern is which programs are freely > > distributable, and even which programs are free > > geez, i almost erased that bit before sending it too :( - to be clear: > by "freely distributable" i totally meant "provides all five of the > four freedoms" > > i will append just this - the issue here is really quite simple to > express - one (and only one) of the following statements must be true: > > * the chromium software provides all of the four freedoms > * the chromium software does not provide all of the four freedoms > > there is no third option
I am not sure that issue is just that simple. Software may have free license, but it may be made to control users, or steer to non-free software. I cannot know if Chromium is now full free, but I do know, and there are references on issues, here is one example I found: https://tracker.pureos.net/T57 There are various issues here referenced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chromium_(web_browser) In general, one can make also the free software that is controlling user or abusing users' privacy, or sending information to companies worldwide. Should such software be included in free software distributions? I don't think so. None of 4 freedoms is referencing "no spyware", but the guidelines do: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html "The distro must contain no DRM, no back doors, and no spyware." That is just example, as so far I know, Chromium was so much connected to Google and was sending data there. Jean