Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Chromium, ungoogled or otherwise, and Guix

[Marius Bakke]

Adonay Felipe Nogueira  writes:

> Also, for those following this discussion, take note of the recent
> contributions made to the still incomplete review in the FSD[1],
> particularly the "Known issues" section that is already a blocker
> regardless if the review is finished or not.
>
> [1] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Review:Chromium-REV-ID-1 .

FYI the toolbar and CC-BY-NC images are not present in the release
tarballs found at
,
which is what distributions use.
 
UnRAR is still there, though.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Chromium, ungoogled or otherwise, and Guix

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

Hi there,


Em 19/02/2019 01:42, Jason Self escreveu:
> I decided to spend some time looking into Chromium, ungoogled-chromium, 
> and Guix's methods, and the GNU FSDG.

Thank you for taking the time to review this software along with me
(despite the fact that I mistakenly started doing the review on a
development release/commit).

> My proposal would be to mention these items in the chromium-browser
> entry on the libreplanet wiki either in addition to or in place of the
> current references of licensing problems that the wiki page has.

I agree.

Also, for those following this discussion, take note of the recent
contributions made to the still incomplete review in the FSD[1],
particularly the "Known issues" section that is already a blocker
regardless if the review is finished or not.

[1] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Review:Chromium-REV-ID-1 .



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Chromium, ungoogled or otherwise, and Guix

[Giovanni Biscuolo]

Hello Jason,

Jason Self  writes:

> On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 17:18 +0100, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
>> do you have the bug number now?
>
> 34565
>
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=34565

thank you for the reference!

for all Guix ungoogled-chromium package DRM I'll continue on that bug
report thread

[...]

-- 
Giovanni Biscuolo

Xelera IT Infrastructures


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Chromium, ungoogled or otherwise, and Guix

[Jason Self]

On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 17:18 +0100, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
> do you have the bug number now?

34565

https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=34565

It seems to be disabled at build time only.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Chromium, ungoogled or otherwise, and Guix

[bill-auger]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:18:19 +0100 Giovanni wrote:
> I agree: please someone involved
> https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:FreedSoftware could complete the
> info for chromium on
> https://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines#chromium-browser
> ?

i think that for all intents and purposes, this mailing list is exactly
that "Group:FreedSoftware"

the essential issue here (and it is THE central issue), is that there
is not yet anything "complete" to change it too - "un-google it" is
not complete - we need a proper recipe, declaring both the problems and
the solutions, for all known problems and solutions - once that
information exists, we would want to discuss it; then upon a consensus
that it is a satisfiable solution, someone can make that edit

i dont think we are anywhere near "complete" yet - we have scantly more
information today than a year ago, when it was concluded that the
"ungoogled" treatment would be necessary but not sufficient


> do you have the bug number now?

i could not find it - the "newest bugs" filter seems to be broken

https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/pkgreport.cgi?newest=guix


On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:18:19 +0100 Giovanni wrote:
> in order to distribute the Linux-libre kernel developers have to
> download a non-FSDG Linux kernel... or they have to download a
> stripped-source-version?

we discussed this on IRC today

firstly, the FSF does make a distinction between the software
developers and technicians may use for the sole purpose of liberating
software and hardware, and the software get re-distributed to users

but the key difference with that anology, practically speaking, is that
is linux-libre is not a distro - this rule we are discussing is from the
FSDG which applies to distros

now for the sake of this argument, guix is a project, but guixsd is a
distro - so that analogy could perhaps be pertinent to the guix package
manager as a distinct project; but guixsd, the distro, has promised to
follow the FSDG

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Chromium, ungoogled or otherwise, and Guix

[Giovanni Biscuolo]

Hello Jason,

Jason Self  writes:

[...]

> My proposal would be to mention these items in the chromium-browser
> entry on the libreplanet wiki either in addition to or in place of the
> current references of licensing problems that the wiki page has.

I agree: please someone involved
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:FreedSoftware could complete the info
for chromium on
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines#chromium-browser
?

I find https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Review:Chromium-REV-ID-1 also very useful

[...]

> problem, but they don't appear to remove the Widevine DRM.
> As long as that remains the case it would seem that ungoogled-chromium
> is also not suitable for inclusion in FSF-endorsed distros, at least
> not out of the box. Since Guix has added ungoogled-chromium, without
> seemingly have changed it to also tackle the DRM portion,

in Guix ungoogled-chromium, Widevine is disabled at build time:
http://issues.guix.info/issue/28004#2
http://issues.guix.info/issue/28004#87

> I have reported this to their bug tracker. I'm waiting to receive the
> bug number.

do you have the bug number now?

> The last item seems specific to Guix: Their method of building seems to
> involve downloading Chromium, then runnning ungoogled-chromium over it,
> and then building.
>
> That would mean, if someone wanted to build it on Guix themselves, that
> they'd also be going through those same steps. I don't know that FSF-
> endorsed distros should be having their users download non-FSDG
> compliant software in order to build them, even if its patched and
> modified during the build process.

in order to distribute the Linux-libre kernel developers have to
download a non-FSDG Linux kernel... or they have to download a
stripped-source-version?... and who is entitled to download a
non-stripped version so he can distribute a stripped-version?

> When LibreWRT was founded in 2010 (before it later merged into
> libreCMC) we submitted a similiar question to the FSF, as to if it was
> sufficient for the LibreWRT build scripts (which would be run by the
> person building the firmware image from source, just like how someone
> might instruct Guix to build from source) to download Linux and then
> run the Linux-libre deblobbing scripts on it vs having the build
> scripts instead download tarballs that were already cleaned up. I can't
> seem to find the email from back then but the response was that we
> needed to use already cleaned-up tarballs. Guix should do something
> similar.

please find that reference, this should be clarified once and for all
(if it's not already documented on some FSF or libreplanet page)

Thanks!
Giovanni

-- 
Giovanni Biscuolo

Xelera IT Infrastructures


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature