Re: [GNU-linux-libre] chromium not free?

[Jaromil]

re all,

i can see two problems in how this discussion has evolved.

one is language: use of "proper" english spelled in long and fairly
complicated phrases to enforce a position that was answered (let's
trust at the "upstream"); the other one is a deja vu from the Lame
diatribe wether is free or not: Debian maintainers at that time stated
Lame is not free and were battled by people that took Mark Taylor's
(upstream) statement at that time as true, without doubting upstream,
but actually building freedom on top of its declarations.

now i'm sorry for what happened and in general i also recommend to
base your analysis on the original source code distributor and not on
the distributions.

ciao




On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Rub�n Rodr�guez wrote:

> 
> > > Do you know where to find a chromium source tarball which is
> > > verified free software?
> > 
> > Please try in "super secret" site at www.chromium.org
> > You can download alse an svn copy for developers at src.chromium.org
> 
> So, either you verified that those sources are free software or you
> think there is no reason to doubt the upstream licensor about it.
> 
> Since Debian people did check the contents of those sources and wrote
> the longest and most untrustworthy copyright file ever, I'm guessing you
> did the latter.
> 
> May I ask if you do that with every package, and if that is the reason
> for leaving blobs inside UTUTO's kernel? They say is GPL2 after all.

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature