On 01/10/2017 03:27 AM, Julie Marchant wrote: > On 01/09/2017 09:47 PM, Luke wrote: >> _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". > That's only in the Jessie package. None of the licenses are indicated to > be "guessed" in the current chromium package for Sid and Stretch: > > http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/c/chromium-browser/chromium-browser_55.0.2883.75-3_copyright > > The only things that are stated to be unknown is "copyright", i.e. who > holds the copyright to the work. But not knowing who holds the copyright > doesn't necessarily imply that the license is unknown. > Thanks for the link. I'm glad to see the situation is improving, ungoogled-chromium also agrees that the situation has changed for the better over the last few months. However, there still seems to be around 57 'source-is-missing' flags in sid that should be fixed: https://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/pkg-chromium-ma...@lists.alioth.debian.org.html#chromium-browser
Using ungoogled-chromium's patches would also remove pre-built binaries, making it considerably more free than it is by default. In regards to QTWebengine, we would need that they remove pre-built binaries as well - the optional privacy patches would also be a big help for nonprism.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.parabola.nu https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev