Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [libreplanet-discuss] QTWebengine is nonfree

[Julie Marchant]

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.

-- 
Julie Marchant
https://onpon4.github.io

Protect your emails with GnuPG:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature