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 covered > > For what is worth, what I learned with projects that don't follow the > Open Source Definition (I know that I shouldn't support this term here, > but I had to mention it) is that they mask their non-compliance behind a > license. Of course we don't intend to foster open source here, as this > project, having the goal to provide a package manager that is under the > GNU project, also aims to create a system distribution that follows the > GNU FSDG and uses such package manager > > 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. > > Having a requirement for a package to be first throughly reviewed > eliminates some of the possibility of having non-free functional data or > non-distributable non-functional data. It's not a perfect protection > (since the package in review might have implemented things from other > works that one of the reviewers might not be aware of). > > As I said in a message to these mailing lists, I already started > reviewing Chromium, although this project is big and I might not have > the time nor all the skills to do it alone. Since today, I moved the > review, which was available at [1], to the appropriate Review namespace > at [2]. > > > [1] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Talk:Chromium > [2] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Review:Chromium-REV-ID-1 Adonay, thank you for taking the initiative here! I think this is a needed step forward. Brett Gilio