seem to be special pleading. Am I wrong?
> most importantly, i personally dont care to argue for nor against
> chromium - i just want all FSDG distros to agree on how it should be
> treated, regardless of what that entails
Why? Are you opposed to individual distros making their own individual
decisions?
--
Julie Marchant
http://onpon4.github.io
Encrypt your emails with GnuPG:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org
me.
They can't just call the police one day and have you arrested for
trespassing. Ergo, you don't need "trust".
The same sort of thing would apply to a licensing situation like this.
If the Chromium team says that Chromium is under the Modified BSD
License, then it *is* under the
related problems solved, and no one has any evidence to
the contrary, that version of Chromium should be accepted.
--
Julie Marchant
http://onpon4.github.io
Encrypt your emails with GnuPG:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org
being
proprietary has ever done so. If I'm wrong about this, though, then it
seems to me that the correct action to take would be to address that
issue, if not upstream, then in a fork.
--
Julie Marchant
http://onpon4.github.io
Encrypt your emails with GnuPG:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org
that it does not comply with the FSDG (that’s the “Commitment
>> to Correct Mistakes” section of FSDG.)
>
> +1 ... If concrete problems are found, by all means those should be
> raised and addressed. Otherwise I really think we ought to merge this
> work.
Yes, exactly.
--
Julie Marchant
http://onpon4.github.io
Encrypt your emails with GnuPG:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org
license checking script, which I might
add is also not proof of any program being proprietary. Not to mention,
this is from over eight years ago. Should distro maintainers also take
the outdated recommendation to remove Project: Starfighter from that
page at face value, despite the fact that I released
