[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Isaac David
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:26:36 -0600

Jason Self wrote :
bill-auger wrote :

 chromium is however not one of those items - and i quote:

   Recommended Fix:
     Remove program/package
     Use GNU IceCat, or equivalent

Yes, although it's presence there is based on a report from 2009 that
upstream has said has been
addressed. [...] There is some evidence that suggests it's outdated (i.e.,
Debian has added Chromium into Main without the -dfsg string in the
package version number which suggests that they didn't need to make
any changes to Chromium to fit with their criteria.

right off the bat, Debian's Chromium steers users towards nonfree
addons, just like their version of Firefox... obviously unacceptable
to FSF standards.

what the libreplanet wiki documented --namely unclear license
headers-- was but one issue, likely addressed upstream by now. it's
also likely that Debian isn't building Chromium from sources
completely, as explained by [Ungoogled Chrommium], unless they went to
great length similarly patching the build process.

that last bit may not be part of the Guidelines, but worries me
still. not to mention all the built-in spyware.

in my mind it's only the [case against Qt-Webengine] (at Parabola)
that rests of pretty shaky grounds: a vague indication that Arch
Linux's [sic] build in particular activated nonfree addons, and fears
that Chromium's problems could be contagious, despite statements to
the contrary made by Qt-Webengine developers themselves.

[Ungoogled Chromium]:
[case against Qt-Webengine]:

Isaac David
GPG: 38D33EF29A7691134357648733466E12EC7BA943
Ring: c8ba5620e080bef9470efb314c257304ff9480f5
Tox: 0C730E0156E96E6193A1445D413557FF5F277BA969A4EA20AC9352889D3B390E77651E816F0C

reply via email to

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