On Sun 2018-04-08 11:53:31 AM - Sam wrote:
> I feel like there's an opportunity for integration of the FSDG
> blacklist and the Directory,
David Hedlund has recently begun an effort to cross-reference and
integrate them[1] and is looking for someone to help maintain it
[1]:
https://directory.fs
Op Fri, 6 Apr 2018 08:51:26 -0400
schreef Donald Robertson :
> I'd like to also encourage people here on the list to help out with
> the Directory. A lot of the same issues we discuss here are relevant
> when looking to add things to the Directory as well.
I feel like there's an opportunity for i
On 04/06/2018 08:06 AM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
>> any concrete results should be noted on the libreplanet wiki[1] for
>> reference - the parabola your-freedom-blacklist[2] serves that same
>
> I don't have enough time to work on evaluating Chromium now, but I must
> point out that at Free
> any concrete results should be noted on the libreplanet wiki[1] for
> reference - the parabola your-freedom-blacklist[2] serves that same
I don't have enough time to work on evaluating Chromium now, but I must
point out that at Free Software Directory we do want evaluation of
famous software tha
On Thu 2018-04-05 09:45:57 PM - KRT wrote:
> And the solution for privacy-minded folks then would be to either
> avoid QtWebEngine entirely, or else compile your own with these
> turned off at compile time? Seems like a hassle
but that is exactly why this is being discussed here
if it can b
On 04/05/2018 03:01 PM, Luke wrote:
>
> Per QT Docs, as long as QTLocation is not compiled then Google APIs for
> Geolocation should not execute.
> https://wiki.qt.io/QtWebEngine/Features#HTML5_Geolocation
Ah, ok, that makes sense. So, I browsed to http://browserleaks.com/geo/
in Falkon, and I
On 04/04/2018 11:53 PM, KRT Listmaster wrote
>>> I might not have time right away to start rebuilding Qt5 from source
>>> with different flags (it's a huge package, takes forever on my systems).
>>> I think the point of this exercise was to evaluate a stock browser
>>> based on QtWebEngine without
On 04/04/2018 04:39 PM, Luke wrote:
> On 04/04/2018 11:58 AM, KRT Listmaster wrote:
>> On 04/03/2018 05:18 PM, Luke wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I have not used QTWebengine in over a year and never ran a leak test. -
>>> If someone has the time to do this and verify there are no freedom
>>> issues, th
On 04/04/2018 11:58 AM, KRT Listmaster wrote:
> On 04/03/2018 05:18 PM, Luke wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I have not used QTWebengine in over a year and never ran a leak test. -
>> If someone has the time to do this and verify there are no freedom
>> issues, they can be removed from the conclusion as you
Am 4. April 2018 17:58:51 MESZ schrieb KRT Listmaster
:
.
>
>I will try some newer versions of Qt5 as well as a newer version of
>QupZilla just to see if there are any differences. However, from my
>preliminary investigations, I would be willing to say that QtWebEngine
>(5.6.1) does not, by its
On 04/03/2018 05:18 PM, Luke wrote:
[...]
> I have not used QTWebengine in over a year and never ran a leak test. -
> If someone has the time to do this and verify there are no freedom
> issues, they can be removed from the conclusion as you mentioned.
>
I've been monitoring QupZilla 2.0.1 (wit
On 04/03/2018 05:32 PM, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 16:40:09 -0400,
> Isaac David wrote:
>>> - Debian freedom patches not applied, e.g. files missing licenses:
>>> https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/blob/077e441e6654e4658de37c9d665e58f61b262961/resources/packaging/debian/b
On 04/03/2018 04:40 PM, Isaac David wrote:
> I was about to say that, although worrisome, spyware capabilities
> have no impact in determining whether a piece of software belongs
> in a FSDG distro or not. Good thing I double-checked with the
> guidelines, because they actually do.
Yes, per: "The d
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 16:40:09 -0400,
Isaac David wrote:
> > - Debian freedom patches not applied, e.g. files missing licenses:
> > https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/blob/077e441e6654e4658de37c9d665e58f61b262961/resources/packaging/debian/buster/source/lintian-overrides
> > https://github
I was about to say that, although worrisome, spyware capabilities
have no impact in determining whether a piece of software belongs
in a FSDG distro or not. Good thing I double-checked with the
guidelines, because they actually do.
Luke wrote :
[A]s of the date of the e-mail there
was still some
On 04/02/2018 09:21 PM, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 18:53:25 -0400,
> Luke wrote:
>> Among the issues that stuck out to me were...
>> - WideVine DRM support.
>> https://github.com/qt/qtwebengine-chromium/tree/b45f07bfbe74c333f1017810c2409e1aa6077a1b/chromium/third_party/widevine/cdm
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 18:53:25 -0400,
Luke wrote:
> Among the issues that stuck out to me were...
> - WideVine DRM support.
> https://github.com/qt/qtwebengine-chromium/tree/b45f07bfbe74c333f1017810c2409e1aa6077a1b/chromium/third_party/widevine/cdm
Is libwidevinecdm.so, or a way to download it, endi
On 04/01/2018 11:13 PM, Isaac David wrote:
> Luke wrote :
>> Users should be aware that QTWebengine is based on Chromium and
>> therefore contains many of the same flaws.
>
> This assertion in particular raises some alarms. I don't
> think that was ever established to be the case; and
> insofar as
Luke wrote :
Users should be aware that QTWebengine is based on Chromium and
therefore contains many of the same flaws.
This assertion in particular raises some alarms. I don't
think that was ever established to be the case; and
insofar as the suspicion goes, both KDE and Qt developers
denied
On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 07:09:47 -0400,
bill-auger wrote:
> i can say though that this list is not always such high volume as it has
> been in recent months - it would be good if it continues at this pace
> but i do expect it to settle down after the current wave of applicants
> passes through
To put
> Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity
> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:41:52 -0400
> From: bill-auger
> Reply-To: Workgroup for fully free GNU/Linux distributions
>
> To: gnu-linux-libre@nongnu.org
>
> On 03/26/2018 03:27 PM, Donald Robertson wrote:
>> a
yes i apologize for my poor choice of words there - that issue i raised
has nothing to do with commercial associations - in fact, the FSDG fully
allows for the distro itself to be a commercially operated entity - that
is, as i understand, essentially what ututo is - but, as far as i know,
the ututo
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 02:28:39PM -0400, bill-auger wrote:
> indeed, the pureos website has no indication of this - now i understand
> why, because that VCS in on the puri.sm domain - i think it is safe to
> assume that this list would be in a fervor if even one link appeared on
> the pureos websi
On 03/27/2018 02:28 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> if pureos is hosting their source code on the puri.sm domain, that
> itself may be new FSDG problem to be addressed; but perhaps a
> contentious one
to avoid any misunderstanding here; i should qualify that by saying that
this is for no other reason than
On 03/27/2018 09:39 AM, Chris Lamb wrote:
> First, just to clarify, this is to do with seeing firmware quote-errors-
> unquote when running update-initramfs and actually nothing to do with
> messages originating from the kernel / "dmesg".
thats all i was trying to determine - it is the kernel erro
Dear all,
Apologies for not seeing this thread earlier.
I believe the source of much for the confusion here is because, alas,
not all of the conversation and clarification has occured on the public
tracker and is thus not visible to you.
Some of these chats happened via IRC and some even happen
On 03/26/2018 09:26 PM, Isaac David wrote:
>
> [Ungoogled Chromium]: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
> [case against Qt-Webengine]: https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/1167
little need to post links about chromium now - this is becoming very old
news - there is a master thread on the F
On 03/26/2018 09:26 PM, Isaac David wrote:
> in my mind it's only the [case against Qt-Webengine] (at Parabola)
> that rests of pretty shaky grounds:
are you saying that you think qt5-webengine is probably acceptable as it is?
but chromium still has problems? (and probably iridium and ungoogled)
On 03/26/2018 10:42 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> A repo to point
> to consisting of free add-ons would be good. Perhaps something along
> the lines of what was done for IceCat plugins to have a list of free
> ones on the FSF's Free Software Directory would be a good thing.
>
free-domium ?
freedom-oni
Isaac David wrote ..
> right off the bat, Debian's Chromium steers users towards nonfree
> addons, just like their version of Firefox... obviously unacceptable
> to FSF standards.
Yes, I know. This stems from a little bit of hand waving on my part. I
tried to touch on it with my comment that "wh
Jason Self wrote :
bill-auger wrote :
chromium is however not one of those items - and i quote:
Recommended Fix:
Remove program/package
Use GNU IceCat, or equivalent
Yes, although it's presence there is based on a report from 2009 that
upstream has said has been
addressed. [...
On 03/26/2018 06:02 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
> There must be some reason why there are many
> topics and posts on Trisquel forum:
i would not use forum activity as any measure of the distro itself - if
anything, that is only a measure of the community - most of the
discussions on the trisquel forum
Well said.
I do like a commercial company such as Purism to
support fully free GNU distribution. That is so
much needed and wanted. And I like that PureOS is
approved.
Yet there is that sense and feeling that it is not
because that group is really dedicated to free
software, my feeling is that th
On 03/26/2018 05:35 PM, Donald Robertson wrote:
> would you mind
> updating it so that the list is not being treated as a blacklist? Thank you.
sure, i did interpret it that way myself - i had already named the data
key 'non-dsfg-software-cleansed' - on the presumption that it is not a
strict blac
On 03/26/2018 05:08 PM, Donald Robertson wrote:
> Yes, I apologize if 'guidance' wasn't clear, I meant that we're going to
> make a decision and share that with the list.
2 decisions please :)
i presume the "a decision" you referred to was the kernel issue - but i
can see the issue with 'qt5-webe
On 03/25/2018 11:58 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> On 03/25/2018 11:35 PM, Robert Call wrote:
>> That is not part of the FSDG!
>
>
> it is one of the checklist items that donald put on the newly codified
> criteria last week[1] - you are correct though, that it is not specified
> on the guidelines web
On 03/26/2018 04:41 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> On 03/26/2018 03:27 PM, Donald Robertson wrote:
>> and at this point we at the FSF need to bring some guidance.
>
>
> there has been a healthy flurry of activity on this list recently and i
> think the will exists to forgot about any friction in the p
On 03/26/2018 03:27 PM, Donald Robertson wrote:
> and at this point we at the FSF need to bring some guidance.
there has been a healthy flurry of activity on this list recently and i
think the will exists to forgot about any friction in the past and move
forward - but i must firmly say that "guid
Julie
this is how it was explained to me - i was a bit mixed up yesterday
myself - but henry's first message today made it clear
the main problem is not so much mentioning the name of the blob but that
the message is presented as an error - "failed to load this blob" - that
gives the impression t
On 03/26/2018 10:15 AM, Jason Self wrote:
> I'm not sure I'd be onboard with that idea. My understanding is that the
> Parabola folk will blacklist a package as soon as an allegation is made
that seems an accurate perception to me - in it's current state it is
not fit for the task - i would not w
Sorry I couldn't jump in sooner on this thread, I've been a bit busy at
LibrePlanet.
In terms of de-listing or other action plans for currently endorsed
distros, that's something for us at the FSF to handle.
What you all can do to help is to file freedom-related bugs where
applicable for any curr
Am Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
schrieb "Jason Self" :
> We're going in circles. We had that discussion before. I pointed to
> the earlier messages on this mailing list where RMS had said it
> amounted to that in our earier conversation, and how
> PureOS was probably an oversight. It does
Julie Marchant wondered about this.
Past discussions of this are in the list archives and probably on the
Linux-libre mailing list too. The general summary is that it's one thing
when someone goes and does something on their own. It's another thing
when their system tells them.
And people hav
Henry Jensen wrote ..
> It depends on how you define "to steer". Just to mention a file name or
> any other non-free program isn't hardly "steering". And it seems that
> this is also the view at the FSF. Otherwise PureOS wouldn't have been
> endorsed in the first place.
We're going in circles. We
On 2018年03月26日 10:31, Jason Self wrote:
> But, if you want a response, the FSDG contains a prohibition to not steer
> users towards obtaining any nonfree information for practical use, or
> encouraging them to do so. It doesn't say that this becomes OK if the
> user is warned; it only says not t
Am Mon, 26 Mar 2018 07:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
schrieb "Jason Self" :
> But, if you want a response, the FSDG contains a prohibition to not
> steer users towards obtaining any nonfree information for practical use,
> or encouraging them to do so.
It depends on how you define "to steer". Just to menti
Henry Jensen wrote ..
> This solution wasn't "not accepted" - there was no response at all on
> this list regarding this solution.
Yes, I stopped responding because of the push back to fix this in the way
that the other distros have. I quietly deemed the push back to fixing the
problem as lack
On 2018年03月26日 09:23, Henry Jensen wrote:
> 2. A complete different issue is about printing messages about
> failed-to-load firmware to the log file. These messages originate from
> the kernel itself, they read like this:
>
> iwlwifi: :03:00.0 firmware: failed to load iwlwifi-6000g2a-6.ucode
>
> keep it updated in an automated way
I'm not sure I'd be onboard with that idea. My understanding is that the
Parabola folk will blacklist a package as soon as an allegation is made, as
part of a "blacklist first, research second" type of policy. I don't mean
to criticize the Parabola folk for
Am Mon, 26 Mar 2018 06:58:54 -0400
schrieb bill-auger :
> how exactly was this issue resolved? the issue title seems spot on but
> that patch does not even attempt to address the FSDG issue of the blob
> name - it is exactly the solution the connochaetos proposed last
> august that was not accept
bill-auger wrote ..
> chromium is however not one of those items - and i quote:
>
> Recommended Fix:
> Remove program/package
> Use GNU IceCat, or equivalent
Yes, although it's presence there is based on a report from 2009 that
upstream has said (on more than one occasion as I recall)
On 03/26/2018 06:32 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> is that someone from FSF (Donald?) CC's directly all current delegates
> from active distros on topic that reached point of need to be discussed
> and solved by distros (aka higher priority topic). That way (at least
> for me) we will not be stretche
[CC'ing Chris so he can elaborate on this. Side note, he and few other
Purism folks are at LibrePlanet]
On 03/26/2018 12:58 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> On 03/25/2018 05:58 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
>> Debian kernel itself is entirely free but there was issues with messages
>> that was brought to us a
On 03/25/2018 05:58 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> Debian kernel itself is entirely free but there was issues with messages
> that was brought to us and we worked on it both in PureOS and Debian at
> same time.
>
> https://tracker.pureos.net/T362
i am curious about this - i thought about tackling i
On 03/26/2018 04:24 AM, bill-auger wrote:
> On 03/25/2018 01:26 PM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
>> we already passed the distro
>> review, you can either help us get better
>> or try to fix review process if you
>> feel unhappy about it.
> the assumption here seems to be that distros have no further ob
On 03/25/2018 11:47 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> Right. And a lot of entries in there have "use version X or later"
chromium is however not one of those items - and i quote:
Recommended Fix:
Remove program/package
Use GNU IceCat, or equivalent
surely that list needs some attention - i supp
On 03/25/2018 11:35 PM, Robert Call wrote:
> That is not part of the FSDG!
it is one of the checklist items that donald put on the newly codified
criteria last week[1] - you are correct though, that it is not specified
on the guidelines web page[2] - maybe it will be added soon - i dunno
of cour
Robert Call wrote ..
> That is not part of the FSDG!
Right. And a lot of entries in there have "use version X or later" as
a fix. So even once Chromium is sorted out it'd still be on there but
with a similar recommended fix. So it's not so much a blacklist
anymore these days but more of a list o
On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 23:17 -0400, bill-auger wrote:
> On 03/25/2018 04:22 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> > But I don't think that the FSDG requires distros to remove a
> > program
> > over allegations of freedom problems.
>
> no, but the FSDG does specify "No software from the List of software
> that do
On 03/25/2018 04:22 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> But I don't think that the FSDG requires distros to remove a program
> over allegations of freedom problems.
no, but the FSDG does specify "No software from the List of software
that does not respect the FSDG" - so until the day chromium is removed
from
On 03/25/2018 02:54 PM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> For chromium - I am not in favor for it and as stated I request complete
> removal. The thing is - we must find more productive ways of this
> because simply removing things means also we remove productivity for
> many people (yes we have fork of Fire
On 2018年03月25日 13:26, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> While Purism did make claims it could not stand to it in timeframe it
> wanted, Purism is still moving thing slowly forward and even has
> constitution to defend such stand. Issues you have with Purism are not
> part of PureOS and I mentioned Purism onl
On 03/25/2018 01:26 PM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> we already passed the distro
> review, you can either help us get better
> or try to fix review process if you
> feel unhappy about it.
the assumption here seems to be that distros have no further obligation
after the initial review process, other th
On 03/25/2018 11:28 AM, Robert Call wrote:
> While I don't agree with Bill's stance
the only sentiments i expressed that qualify as a "stance" are that
everyone should held to the same standards and that each distro should
elect a delegate to participate in these discussions - i should hope
those w
i really can not speak to any experiences you may have had on this list
in the past - i have only been active on this list for about one year
and i have not seen anything particularly negative about pureos in that time
personally, i have insufficient facts to form an opinion of either
pureos or pu
On 25/03/2018 19:56, Robert Call wrote:
>
> What more did you expect when a project is started by a parent company
> and pushed for a discrete nvidia GPU for their crowdfunding campaign?
> Had it been a truly independent project, that would not have happened.
> Projects associated with a parent
> For chromium - I am not in favor for it and as stated I request
> complete removal. The thing is - we must find more productive ways
> of this because simply removing things means also we remove
> productivity for many people (yes we have fork of Firefox but that
> is still not 100% stable an
On 3/25/18 7:56 PM, Robert Call wrote:
On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 19:26 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
On 3/25/18 5:28 PM, Robert Call wrote:
On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 11:58 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
On 3/24/18 6:51 PM, bill-auger wrote:
* pureos has a long-standing open request to remove chromium i
On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 19:26 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> On 3/25/18 5:28 PM, Robert Call wrote:
> > On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 11:58 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> > > On 3/24/18 6:51 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> > > > * pureos has a long-standing open request to remove chromium in
> > > > solidarity with
On 3/25/18 5:28 PM, Robert Call wrote:
On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 11:58 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
On 3/24/18 6:51 PM, bill-auger wrote:
* pureos has a long-standing open request to remove chromium in
solidarity with the other FSDG distros - that issue is o/c a
separate
can of worms; but i think
On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 11:58 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> On 3/24/18 6:51 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> >
> > * pureos has a long-standing open request to remove chromium in
> > solidarity with the other FSDG distros - that issue is o/c a
> > separate
> > can of worms; but i think all distros should be
On 3/24/18 6:51 PM, bill-auger wrote:
>
> * pureos has a long-standing open request to remove chromium in
> solidarity with the other FSDG distros - that issue is o/c a separate
> can of worms; but i think all distros should be projecting a uniform
> message, however vague the circumstance, until
On 03/24/2018 08:47 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> Please feel free to start a review of Ututo or
> any other one.
ok - that is precisely the intention of this thread to determine if such
a review were done and if there were blatent problems then would
anything actually be done about that situation
im g
On 03/24/2018 09:20 PM, Robert Call wrote:
> I don't think kicking distros off the list is a good approach (unless
> they show they are not willing to fix real freedom issues). As for
> kicking distros that don't release frequently, a better approach might
> be to get them the help they need instea
geez, these reactions like: "condemnation" and "punishment" - im really
only addressing the most extreme (stick a fork in it) cases here - i did
not realize any were ever demoted for any reason for any period of time
in the past - that is really all i hoped to establish as a baseline for
On 03/24
On 2018年03月24日 20:47, Jason Self wrote:
> My recollection of why they were put back is that the notion of if a
> distro was actively maintained or not was supposed to be based on how
> the maintainers of the distro classified it and not on some
> externally-measurable thing like when the last relea
On Sat, 2018-03-24 at 13:51 -0400, bill-auger wrote:
> i have been assuming that the FSDG is intended to be ongoing
> requirements and not only a guide for initial consideration; and that
> the post-review adfeno and i did last summer may have been the first,
> not because it was unwelcome, but onl
On 03/24/2018 08:47 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> I don't understand the desire to boot distros off over how
> "maintained" they are.
before i read the rest of this - my desire is not to kick any off - i
only am trying to clarify the grey areas
"actively maintained" is one of the criteria - so what do
I don't understand the desire to boot distros off over how
"maintained" they are. (Like how often releases happen, etc.) Both
Blag and Ututo have been removed before. That can be seen in the log
from the version control system [0]. One of the cited reasons, for
Blag, was "it was last updated in 201
i have been assuming that the FSDG is intended to be ongoing
requirements and not only a guide for initial consideration; and that
the post-review adfeno and i did last summer may have been the first,
not because it was unwelcome, but only because no one had yet taken the
initiative to do it
that
80 matches
Mail list logo
