Re: FSDG status of chromium

[bill-auger]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 03:23:51 +0200 Marius wrote:
> Can you point out which part of the upstream bug that is relevant?
> 
>  https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=28291

the fact that it is still open after 10 years is relevance enough -
IMHO i would want to see that bug closed as [FIXED] before any FSDG
distro packages chromium or any of it's de


On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 03:23:51 +0200 Marius wrote:
> AFAICT it's about bundled software, and in our case there are only 379
> files that need auditing.  Am I missing something?

if that is the extent of it, that would actually be within the scope of
feasibility


On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 03:23:51 +0200 Marius wrote:
> bill-auger <address@hidden> writes:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 21:08:42 +0200 Marius wrote:  
> > > It seems to me using "Ungoogled-Chromium" remediates Lukes
> > > concerns  
> >
> > yes most people agree that the ungoogled patches would be necessary
> > but not sufficient for any FSDG compliant build of chromium  
> 
> What else is remaining?

sorting out the licensing, and the other issues that luke wrote about -
also this i have not looked into but someone on IRC wanted to point out
yesterday

> Since people were wondering about the status of Chromium it should be
> noted that it's getting worse to clean the stinking pile up:
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18065856
> https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9irevi/chrome_69_clear_all_cookies_doesnt_delete_google/
> https://news.softpedia.com/news/chrome-69-does-not-delete-google-cookies-when-clearing-all-website-data-522884.shtml


On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 03:23:51 +0200 Marius wrote:
>  Their Chromium directory is 1,5 GiB uncompressed compared
> to 2.2 GiB for the Guix package and 4.5 GiB for the upstream tarball.

not for nothing, but does that seem reasonable to you? - a tiny bit
excessive perhaps? - IMHO the sheer magnitude of this software should
frighten anyone


On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 03:23:51 +0200 Marius wrote:
> As far as I can tell, both packages are eligible for free
> distributions, assuming proper caretaking is in place

again, the best place to discuss this is on the FSDG mailing list[1] - i
personally do not care whether this program is or is not available in
any distro - my only stake in this is that i want to see all of the
FSDG distro present themselves uniformly regarding concerns that are
uniformly applicable to them all - this chromium/webengine issue is one
of the most visible and out-standing of any such issues

please do join that mailing list and start a thread announcing your
intentions and your findings - there are people there who are
interested in this topic, those who have already looked into it more
than i have, and those such as adfeno who may even be willing to help
resolve this issue once and for all - but above all, to let everyone
reach a consensus, with the guidance of the FSF, as to whether or not
*any* FSDG distro should be distributing chromium - as of today, the
consensus is that none of them should because there no known and
documented liberation procedure


[1]: https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-linux-libre