|Subject:||Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [libreplanet-discuss] QTWebengine is nonfree|
|Date:||Tue, 10 Jan 2017 02:47:00 +0000|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101, Thunderbird/38.5.1|
On 01/10/2017 01:17 AM, Julie Marchant wrote:
On 01/09/2017 04:24 PM, Hanno Böck wrote:I think if there are concerns about the free'ness of chromium they should be substantiated.I would like to echo this sentiment. It's been something of a meme for years that Chromium has proprietary components, but the actual components that are supposedly proprietary are never pointed to. I see no indication in Debian's copyright file that any part of Chromium is proprietary. Even the Iridium issue that has been linked to does not indicate that any part of Iridium is proprietary. It's just someone asking if there are any proprietary components, and the question hasn't been answered. If no one can point to the actual files that are supposedly not properly licensed, then I think it is fair to assume that the claim is incorrect. After all, it's not reasonable to wade through every single one of the files that are a part of the Chromium distribution to make absolutely sure that every file is properly licensed. We should take people (such as the Debian package maintainer) at their word when they say that all the files are under a libre license, unless someone finds evidence to the contrary.
Copyright: UNKNOWN - 286 occurrences
License: BSD *(guessed)* - 1017 occurrences
License: *No copyright* UNKNOWN - 71 occurrences
File list available here: http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/c/chromium-browser/chromium-browser_55.0.2883.75-1~deb8u1_copyright
I've reached out to ungoogled-chromium as well since the project spends a considerable amount of time patching, to ask what they considered to be "large portions of code".
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|