On 2/16/19 2:47 PM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
[snip]
>
> 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
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
On 2/16/19 2:29 PM, Amin Bandali wrote:
>> I’ve attached a gzipped version of the above text file.
>
> Sorry, hit send too soon. I’ve attached it to this message.
>
I just want to clarify something here. Not having proper license and
copyright headers on files within a project is not a bar
On 2/17/19 9:06 AM, Julie Marchant wrote:
[snip]
>
>> most importantly, i personally dont care to argue for nor against
>> chromium - i just want all FSDG distros to agree on how it should be
>> treated, regardless of what that entails
>
> Why? Are you opposed to individual distros making
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
Giovanni -
the first thing i would wat to say is that no one wants to refer to
that list as a "Software blacklist"
a blacklist implies that something is to be shunned, and permanently
so - the main point of that list is not only to point out programs that
have known problems, but more
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
>
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
Hello licensing team and gnu-linux-libre,
first: thank you all for your commitment!
please I have some questions and some comment on the subject
I'm following the guix-de...@gnu.org mailing list (I'm not a maintainer)
and in this thread
