[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [directory-discuss] FSF opinion on chromium, QtWebEngine, electron

From: bill-auger
Subject: Re: [directory-discuss] FSF opinion on chromium, QtWebEngine, electron
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 05:34:07 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0

On 11/04/2017 02:34 AM, David Hedlund wrote:
> Should we add a Antifeature for ? 

this is not an anti-feature but a licensing issue and i dont know why
you singled out Iridium - was that post to the wrong topic maybe?

chromium browser is listed on the "List of software that does not
respect the Free System Distribution Guidelines" wiki page[1] - as far
as i have been able to determine this issue affects all browsers derived
from chromium simply because no one from any of the popular forks i have
looked at such as un-googled chromium and iridium has claimed to address
it - i gave atom and vscode only as examples - AFAIK this issue equally
affects all software derived from chromium, qtwebengine, or electron

the intention of this thread is to re-kindle the discussion regarding
the licenses (or lack of) in the chromium code-base that has recently
fizzled out and appears to be fading away into obscurity unresolved -
while the parabola distro is left bearing the brunt with users asking
why their favorite programs which they though were free are not
available in parabola and without actually having a clear answer to give
other than: "no one knows for certain but it was a casualty of the great
Chromium/QtWebEngine purge of 2017"

the suspicions surrounding the chromium browser began as best as i can
tell within the first week of the release of the *nix port back in 2009
- the original discussion on the gnu-linux-libre list spanned over two
months[2] and was discussed again on several occasions over the
years[3][4][5][6] and a stack of issues has accumulated on the parabola
bug tracker[7]

from 2009 through to 2012 there was much activity by the chromium team
to address these concerns and then activity petered out - although the
issue was never officially closed[8]


[2] "Status of google chrome and chromium"

[3]: "chromium not free?"

[4]: "Time to recheck Chromium?"

[5]: "QTWebengine is nonfree"

[6]: "QTWebengine is nonfree"

[7]: "QTWebgine embeds "entire Chromium platform""


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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