the difference there is that chromium is not one piece of software
written by one person or even one modestly sized team - it is a
conglomeration of perhaps 100s of different projects written by perhaps
1000s of authors - for some files, it may not actually be known who the
author is, never mind wh
On 02/16/2019 09:42 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> Julie -
>
> that was all just a long winded re-statement of the "we should always
> trust the upstream blindly" argument - i think the Great Wise Old Gnu
> would conclude that is a very unwise general policy; and especially
> unwise when that particular
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 14:34:38 -0200 Alexandre wrote:
> Maybe you have actually completed the steps that were missing in the
> auditing or Chromium to conclude it's Free, or at least some of the
> remaining tasks can be checked off.
that would be something wonderful, indeed
nothing would please me
Yes, I have the 'rm /run/user/1000/shepherd/socket' workaround in my session
script too...
According to 'man 2 bind', the socket pathname should be deleted when no
longer required, so a patch to fix this bug:
>From f171f6adb2fc6ee3bf4d25378c2e7bba109b43d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?
Julie -
that was all just a long winded re-statement of the "we should always
trust the upstream blindly" argument - i think the Great Wise Old Gnu
would conclude that is a very unwise general policy; and especially
unwise when that particular upstream is well-known for its code being
non-FSDG fre
On 02/16/2019 08:37 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:18:58 -0500 Julie wrote:
> yes they have - the original bug report noted several; and those were
> said to be fixed
Ah, perfect. Then the problem is solved, no? Those issues, as you say,
were fixed by the Chromium team (according t
Hi!
Thank you very much to all of you
I am playing with them :)
Regards :)
Laura
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 17:33:21 +0100 Marius wrote:
> Do we have
> any reason to distrust what's written in the LICENSE file?
based on your own account, you very explicitly distrust the code
released by those authors in terms of privacy - so why would you
implicitly trust it in terms of licensing -
Alex -
you are really mis-characterizing the situation here - this really has
very little to do with chromium specifically - the problem is when some
FSDG distro decide for themselves that *any* program qualifies as "free
software" when the others have agreed that it does not - this plants the
see
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 that stood for many
months, unaddressed
i think that
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:18:58 -0500 Julie wrote:
> In justice
> systems, we adopt an "innocent until proven guilty" system because you
> can't really prove innocence, only guilt.
i wondered if someone would bring that up -
there is a huge difference with this (and i have already made this
clea
@clement
Thanks! Btw, shouldn't the first line be "(boot loader
(bootloader-configuration)" in the code snippet you sent??
Original Message
On 16 Feb 2019, 17:11, Clément Lassieur wrote:
> Hi Raghav,
>
> Raghav RG Gururajan writes:
>
>> @clement
>>
>> This is the actual error
Hi Raghav,
Raghav RG Gururajan writes:
> @clement
>
> This is the actual error.
>
> /etc/config-fail.scm:9:0: error: extraneous field initializers
> (bootloader-configuration)
Yes, you need to use the (gnu bootloader) module.
I actually use the (gnu) module as shown in the docs, which exports
@clement
This is the actual error.
/etc/config-fail.scm:9:0: error: extraneous field initializers
(bootloader-configuration)
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 6:58 PM, Raghav "RG" Gururajan
wrote:
> Hi Clement!
>
> The follo
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019, at 7:48 PM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> 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.
The Linux kernel was included in GNU distri
Brett Gilio writes:
> 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 f
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 covere
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 wi
Marius,
On 2019-02-16 5:33 PM, Marius Bakke wrote:
[...]
>
> Can you point out one or more files with an unclear license? Do we have
> any reason to distrust what's written in the LICENSE file?
>
I don’t have a direct example of one such file off top of my head, but
looking at the large repor
Laura Lazzati writes:
> Hi!
>> > * First entry maybe is the homepage as such.
> Guix site?
>> > * Then show the documentation [or: are we here already assuming that
>> > someone found that?].
> We are adding in every video the link to the full documentation in the
> last slide.
>> > * Then mailin
Hi Clement!
The following is the error I got.
config-fail.scm:9:0: error: inherit: unbound variable
hint: Did you forget a `use-modules' form?
Original Message
On 14 Feb 2019, 13:07, Raghav "RG" Gururajan wrote:
> Hi Clement!
>>
>> Thanks! Will do.
>>
>> @Jack. Can you also tr
Hi guix-devel!
this is my humble contribution to this discussion...
(I'm not a Guix maintainer)
first and foremost, IMHO guix-devel is not the place to discuss GNU FSDG
criteria; I'm going to subscribe gnu-linux-li...@nongnu.org to send
my comments - and I _have_ some - on the FSDG compliance pro
> Since there have been no coherent arguments against this browser in
> the two weeks since it was submitted, I plan to push this patch
> *tomorrow*.
Hi Marius,
Thank you again for your excellent work. I'm looking forward to seeing
it pushed!
Clément
Björn Höfling writes:
> Hi Laura,
>
> you wanted to know how to use GPG subkeys. You want to use them for
> virtual machines. I found a very nice, practical explanation from the
> Debian wiki:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Subkeys
>
Another guide I find useful is:
https://riseup.net/en/security/mes
Alexandre Oliva writes:
> On Feb 16, 2019, Marius Bakke wrote:
>
>> Despite years of searching, I have not found any proprietary parts in
>> first party code!
>
> Could you please summarize what you did in your searching?
>
> Maybe you have actually completed the steps that were missing in the
>
On Feb 16, 2019, Marius Bakke wrote:
> Despite years of searching, I have not found any proprietary parts in
> first party code!
Could you please summarize what you did in your searching?
Maybe you have actually completed the steps that were missing in the
auditing or Chromium to conclude it's
Amin,
Amin Bandali writes:
> Marius, if I understand correctly, you have summarized your patch with
> respect to the following two issues:
>
> 1. Your patch strips out parts of Chromium that are /clearly/ nonfree
>and proprietary (e.g. unrar per your example), and
>
> 2. Your patch addresses
Marius, if I understand correctly, you have summarized your patch with
respect to the following two issues:
1. Your patch strips out parts of Chromium that are /clearly/ nonfree
and proprietary (e.g. unrar per your example), and
2. Your patch addresses (or tries to) privacy concerns.
But as f
bill-auger writes:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 23:34:45 +0100 Ludovic wrote:
>> It’s not entirely clear to me what the problems are, to be honest.
>
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2019 22:04:59 +0100 Marius wrote:
>> Indeed, the only real breakthrough is that we now have a script to
>> create an Ungooglified sourc
On February 16, 2019 9:18:58 AM EST, Julie Marchant wrote:
>On 02/16/2019 05:25 AM, Brett Gilio wrote:
>> I agree with everything Bill said in his message, and I heavily
>> encourage all of us lurking in this mailing list with an opinion on
>the
>> matter to please state your opinion on this co
Hello, bill! Thanks for your clarifications!
Really, is it possible to make chromium free software?
Also, FSF free software directory can divide packages by criteria like
1) Totally free GNU - open-source and free license GPL
2) Totally free nonGNU - - open-source and free license non-GPL
3) Totall
On 02/16/2019 05:25 AM, Brett Gilio wrote:
> I agree with everything Bill said in his message, and I heavily
> encourage all of us lurking in this mailing list with an opinion on the
> matter to please state your opinion on this controversy and the Guix
> relationship to the FSDG.
>
> The free sof
Hello,
ezt írta (időpont: 2019. febr. 16., Szo, 13:56):
>
> I think it's unreasonable to assume that everyone involved in GNU Distros
> reads and participates in gnu-linux-li...@nongnu.org discussions. You have
> a limited amount of time for projects, and this other mailinglist, when I
> used to
I think it's unreasonable to assume that everyone involved in GNU Distros
reads and participates in gnu-linux-li...@nongnu.org discussions. You have
a limited amount of time for projects, and this other mailinglist, when I
used to follow it has lots of discussions not related to Guix. So please
don
Hello,
bill-auger ezt írta (időpont: 2019. febr.
16., Szo, 9:01):
> it is not clear to *anyone* precisely what the licensing problems are -
> not even the upstream developers have been able to confirm or deny them
> with any certainty - that is the very reason why this ugly situation has
> been
Hi Danny,
Danny Milosavljevic writes:
> Can you try the following (if you didn't already)?
>
> [...]
>
> (i.e. the things you did before, just inside a i686-linux guix
> environment. That only provides minimal--almost no--isolation from
> the host, so it should allow us to test whether the pers
bill-auger writes:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 23:34:45 +0100 Ludovic wrote:
>> It’s not entirely clear to me what the problems are, to be honest.
>
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2019 22:04:59 +0100 Marius wrote:
>> Indeed, the only real breakthrough is that we now have a script to
>> create an Ungooglified sour
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 23:34:45 +0100 Ludovic wrote:
> It’s not entirely clear to me what the problems are, to be honest.
On Wed, 06 Feb 2019 22:04:59 +0100 Marius wrote:
> Indeed, the only real breakthrough is that we now have a script to
> create an Ungooglified source tarball with all unnecessar
38 matches
Mail list logo
