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 with projects that don't follow the Open Source Definition (I know that I shouldn't support this term here, but I had to mention it) is that they mask their non-compliance behind a license. Of course we don't intend to foster open source here, as this project, having the goal to provide a package manager that is under the GNU project, also aims to create a system distribution that follows the GNU FSDG and uses such package manager 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. Having a requirement for a package to be first throughly reviewed eliminates some of the possibility of having non-free functional data or non-distributable non-functional data. It's not a perfect protection (since the package in review might have implemented things from other works that one of the reviewers might not be aware of). 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 available at [1], to the appropriate Review namespace at [2]. [1] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Talk:Chromium [2] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Review:Chromium-REV-ID-1
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
