bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> writes:
> if we do not FIRSTLY apologize to pureos for asking them to remove > chromium and publicly endorse them to re-instate it, then endorsing it > into guix would be hypocritical and shameful I find this use of “we” confusing. I don’t feel motivated to apologize to the people involved in PureOS because I wasn’t around when they were pressured / convinced to drop Chromium. I don’t know if any of the regular Guix contributors have. In day to day Guix activities, we don’t ask developers of other distros that also happen to subscribe to the FSDG to reach consensus before making project decisions. You are suggesting that FSDG distros form a community beyond the sense that they abide by the same guidelines. I don’t think that’s reflecting reality. It’s another thing to discuss if this should be so. With regards to the Chromium upstream bug report about the license script and the suggestion that upstream doesn’t know what license their code has, I’m satisfied with this comment: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=28291#c31 The script appears to be not very successful in detecting valid license declarations in third party code. FWIW, in my opinion it would be unreasonable to further delay Marius’s work from becoming part of Guix. I see no violation of the FSDG here. -- Ricardo
