Leo Famulari wrote: > To clarify this general point about Guix for anyone who is reading > along, as a matter of policy the end user does not receive non-free > source code from Guix.
Right; the source is downloaded from commondatastorage.googleapis.com but that is a technicality. What I'm saying is that the recipe should be updated to cause it to download an already-cleaned up version directly from Guix (it could be hosted somewhere on gnu.org for example but exactly where can be up for negotiation) and that this excuse of "they're getting it elsewhere" shouldn't be usable as an excuse to sidestep the FSDG. It's still causing the user to download the software due to the recipes provided by Guix. > The tools provided by Guix to access source code only return source > code that is freely licensed. If the sources have to be modified to > ensure this, the unodified source code is not provided to the user. It's still being downloaded into their computer and then being cleaned up after the fact. If there weren't freedom problems with it there wouldn't be a need for a clean-up program (ungoogled-chromium in this case) to be running -- as a process on the user's computer -- to do this. And in https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines. html we have: "For instance, a free system distribution must not contain browsers that implement EME, the browser functionality designed to load DRM modules." So that should make it quite clear.
