[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: Adonay Felipe Nogueira
Subject: Re: [directory-discuss] FSF opinion on chromium, QtWebEngine, electron
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:44:34 -0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux)

I decided to try helping a little, so I used licensecheck (from
devscripts version 2.14.1ubuntu0.1, available in the official Trisquel
repositories, and as the version string implies, provided directly by
Trisquel's upstream --- because no Trisquel-specific patches where

So I have attached the results of using `licensecheck' inside the "src"
repository of Chromium, which was cloned like this:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
git clone --depth 1 ""; 
cd "chromium"
licensecheck -c '.*' -r * > "../licensecheck_chromium.txt"
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Note that this repository goes beyond the source files for GNU/Linux. I
decided not to use "depot_tools" as suggested by Google/Chromium because
I don't really trust this algumentation just to fetch the source
files, which could be simplified in their end.

One thing I notice is that `licensecheck' incorrectly considers license
notices for "MIT" (X11 or Expat, the latter which is more common) and
BSD-likes both which are shorter than those required by the license to
be valid. The same applies to {AG,F,G,LG}PL. A perhaps off-topic note on
the comparison between official notices is described in [1].

Besides, many files have licenses classified as "UNKNOWN" by
`licensecheck', I didn't check each of these files, but I guess they
have at least one copyright-and-license notice that applies to them but
which comes from a "master" or parent file. Still, not putting the
copyright-and-license notices in the files leaves this kind of doubt ---
and this laziness isn't recommended anyways.

Finally, according to `licensecheck', many notices fail to specify the
version of the licenses.

[1] Actually, if one compares the official license notices for
{AG,F,G,LG}PL between the officials for "MIT" and BSD-likes, one can see
that the {AG,F,G,LG}PL are shorter because they don't require putting
the full license text in the notice.

Attachment: licensecheck_chromium.txt
Description: Text document

bill-auger <address@hidden> writes:

> i would like to ask about the FSF opinion of chromium and electron-based
> programs - as you probably know there was a big controversy this year
> over the chromium code-base and that caused parabola to remove and
> blacklist chromium and all QtWebEngine and electron-based programs - no
> one has heard any news of a change of opinion about this or any
> investigation so that is how it remains today because parabola wants to
> align with the FSF's opinion
> recently though users have been noting that there are a number of such
> programs listed in the directory[1][2] and the FSF has recently
> published an interview promoting the QtWebEngine-based qupzilla
> browser[3] so there are some mixed signals floating about and parabola
> has no clear answers to tell the users who want these programs restored
> has there been any change in the FSF opinion of chromium? if no, should
> those programs be removed from the directory? or if yes, could parabola
> restore them to their repos?
> [1]:
> [2]:
> [3]:

- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
  instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato:
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
  Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
  GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
  (apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.

reply via email to

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