[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

From: bill-auger
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:48:20 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0

On 03/26/2018 05:08 PM, Donald Robertson wrote:
> Yes, I apologize if 'guidance' wasn't clear, I meant that we're going to
> make a decision and share that with the list.

2 decisions please :)

i presume the "a decision" you referred to was the kernel issue - but i
can see the issue with 'qt5-webengine' being the next sticky widget on
this list - if not, i would like to make so myself, presently

as it is, although pureos has removed chromium, i quite expect that they
have no intention of removing 'qt5-webengine' and it's many dependents -
sure, i could file a freedom bug report against it; but they could
rightfully say (perhaps 10 months later) "its not on the blacklist so we
are no compelled" - after which, the matter would need to be referred
back to you anyways - so it is well to be addressed now, so that i dont
need to register on the pureos bug tracker just to open a rift of
contention where none should be necessary

i want to say one general thing to everyone about this - the sentiment
from pureos yesterday when they reluctantly removed chromium was of the
sort: "this is a dis-service to users" - that instinct is perhaps
understandable, but when you really think about it, is it really? how is
is it a dis-service for a freedom-respecting distro to remove a program
that is not known to be free software? (oh - but our users *like* that
program) - parabola users liked those programs too; but parabola removed
them on the principle that their removal was in the best service to
freedom-minded users; even if the users wept - tough love, son

it is not the objective of the FSDG to allow exceptions for certain
high-profile programs to pass scrutiny only because users may complain
of their absence - if those users would want to use those program even
though they are not known to be free; then those users may as well be
using a proprietary OS - furthermore, the users can always go to
www.krome.oogle and grab the binary if they desire it so much - but we
are not here to cater to that desire - i would like to think that all
software is to be considered non-free until proven otherwise - with no
exceptions because *users like it anyways*

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]