Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Time to recheck Chromium?
On Thu, 08 Nov 2012, Henry Jensen wrote: > On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:14:44 +0200 > Jaromil wrote: > > > On Wed, 04 Apr 2012, Karl Goetz wrote: > > > > looking forward to more opinions. > > > > > > For consistency sake, which version did you check? > > > > oh sorry forgot to include that, > > > > I've been scrolling through licensing notices in 18.0.1025.142 which > > is the latest codebase tagged as stable on 28 march > > Stable chromium is at 23.0.1271.64 now. Any news on this? I'm also interested, but now looking forward to someone else's review, hoping nothing non-free was introduced, then I think I'll put chromium together with Icecat in the next version of dyne:III ... ciao -- http://jaromil.dyne.org GPG: B2D9 9376 BFB2 60B7 601F 5B62 F6D3 FBD9 C2B6 8E39
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Time to recheck Chromium?
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:14:44 +0200 Jaromil wrote: > On Wed, 04 Apr 2012, Karl Goetz wrote: > > > looking forward to more opinions. > > > > For consistency sake, which version did you check? > > oh sorry forgot to include that, > > I've been scrolling through licensing notices in 18.0.1025.142 which > is the latest codebase tagged as stable on 28 march Stable chromium is at 23.0.1271.64 now. Any news on this?
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Time to recheck Chromium?
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012, Karl Goetz wrote: > > looking forward to more opinions. > > For consistency sake, which version did you check? oh sorry forgot to include that, I've been scrolling through licensing notices in 18.0.1025.142 which is the latest codebase tagged as stable on 28 march ciao -- jaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org GPG: B2D9 9376 BFB2 60B7 601F 5B62 F6D3 FBD9 C2B6 8E39
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Time to recheck Chromium?
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:04:43 +0200 Jaromil wrote: > > hi Brett > > On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Brett Smith wrote: > > > Is anybody interested in taking a deeper look at Chromium's current > > status to see if there might be a way to include it now? I remain > > loyal to Mozilla-based browsers myself, but I know a lot of users > > are interested in Chromium, so it would be nice if that was an > > option free distros could provide. > > > I've checked through the list of licenses now comfortably offered by > the built-in url chrome://credits which is generated by a script in > the source which can be trusted, AFAIK. > > There are many components and I wouldn't rely on my single analysis > now, since some details might have slipped through my attention, > however my outcome is positive, most licenses are BSD, Apache, MIT, > public domain, Expat etc. plus of course GNU GPL v2 and v3. To me it > seems there are no proprietary licenses tainting chromium ATM. > > looking forward to more opinions. For consistency sake, which version did you check? If someone who doesn't a 2nd look checks a different version you'll get different results strait off the bat. thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK7FOSS) http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group *** I've changed GPG key to 6C097260 *** signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Time to recheck Chromium?
hi Brett On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Brett Smith wrote: > Is anybody interested in taking a deeper look at Chromium's current > status to see if there might be a way to include it now? I remain > loyal to Mozilla-based browsers myself, but I know a lot of users > are interested in Chromium, so it would be nice if that was an > option free distros could provide. I've checked through the list of licenses now comfortably offered by the built-in url chrome://credits which is generated by a script in the source which can be trusted, AFAIK. There are many components and I wouldn't rely on my single analysis now, since some details might have slipped through my attention, however my outcome is positive, most licenses are BSD, Apache, MIT, public domain, Expat etc. plus of course GNU GPL v2 and v3. To me it seems there are no proprietary licenses tainting chromium ATM. looking forward to more opinions. ciao -- jaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org GPG: B2D9 9376 BFB2 60B7 601F 5B62 F6D3 FBD9 C2B6 8E39 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Time to recheck Chromium?
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Brett Smith wrote: > Is anybody interested in taking a deeper look at Chromium's current > status to see if there might be a way to include it now? I remain loyal > to Mozilla-based browsers myself, but I know a lot of users are > interested in Chromium, so it would be nice if that was an option free > distros could provide. I'm interested in a deeper look, will post here once done. Among other good qualities, chromium is very useful to browse from slow and old machines. This heads up sounds like good news! lets see... ciao
[GNU-linux-libre] Time to recheck Chromium?
Inspired by a recent bug report, I started taking another look at Chromium's current licensing situation, and it seems like there's been a lot of improvement. A lot of the problems I used to know about are gone. Using Debian's copyright file as a sort of guide, I went looking for files with bad licensing, and didn't have any luck -- a lot of the files that Debian classifies as "unknown" are autogenerated, or have good license headers that were just missed by whatever script they're using. The bug report that we link to in NONFSDG has seen a lot of progress since, including at least one update this year. Is anybody interested in taking a deeper look at Chromium's current status to see if there might be a way to include it now? I remain loyal to Mozilla-based browsers myself, but I know a lot of users are interested in Chromium, so it would be nice if that was an option free distros could provide. -- Brett Smith License Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation Support the FSF by becoming an Associate Member: http://fsf.org/jf
