As an user, I saw this " It is not just a port of the core HTML/CSS rendering engine, it is the entire Chromium platform. " into https://wiki.qt.io/QtWebEngine and I have to admit that it was pretty clear. 🤔
On 17/03/17 18:37, Nicolás A. Ortega wrote: > I have been following this issue for a long time now, however I haven't > been able to respond to any threads due to technical reasons. > > As I've been following along with these issues I've found very little > evidence that Chromium is in-and-of-itself non-free (not including > third-party plugins such as Widevine, which also support DRM), much less > other software that use Chromium infrastructure (correct me if that was > the incorrect term) such as QtWebEngine. What's more, the evidence that > is provided tends to be either of no indication that Chromium is > non-free (such as the Debian lintian reports that I constantly see > floating around [0]) typically refers to JavaScript files that are Free > Software, however they are simply minified. Although this may be a > reason not to package it, it most definitely is not a reason to call > Chromium non-free. If the arguments were saying that Chromium has > non-free third parties such as Widevine then that is perfectly valid (so > does Firefox[1], however we do not have the Firefox issue, in Parabola > at least, since we use IceWeasel/IceCat instead), but third-party > plugins such as Widevine can be easily removed (the Debian community has > done this[2]). In the Red Hat community these reports were brought up to > their maintainer and the maintainer concluded that all of the issues > brought up in the prior mentioned lintian reports are in reality free JS > but simply minified (which, as I mentioned before, is an issue for > packaging but not for freedom necessarily)[3] > > The second largest complaint of Chromium has been that it leaks > information[4][5]. First I would like to make very clear that even if a > program lacks security or privacy features that **does not** make it > non-free. Therefore, even if there are privacy issues Chromium should > not be labelled as non-free, but rather insecure and at the very most > spyware (we are well aware that even Free Software can spy on you[6]). > However, moving on, I have looked through these issues that were brought > up and it seems that they have been slowly fixed with the exception of > three of them which were labelled as either `wontfix'[7][8] or still > remain open[9]. Upon these grounds Chromium can be judged. > > If it turns out that there truly are non-free files in Chromium then let > it be so, I won't complain, but there needs to be solid evidence. I > understand it being removed from the Parabola repositories as a > temporary measure until the issue is resolved (as Parabola should not > risk there being non-free software in the repository), however to > publicly claim that it is non-free without any substantial evidence is > something that has been annoying me. I would ask that when these claims > are made that they are given with hard evidence as to the matter, and > (quite importantly) that when it is announced to the community via news > post[10] that it give **all** evidence (or at least the most pertinent > evidence) as to why a software is non-free, and if the reasons are > something other then it should be stated as such (eg. privacy concerns, > temporary removal until freedom issues resolved, etc.). > > Again, if Chromium indeed has non-free files then I am fine with it > being removed, however I would like links with the evidence **and** it > should be reported to upstream as an issue (a link to the upstream bug > would also be something nice to add to the news post). I'm pretty sure > that opening a bug report will be much less work than all of this > repackaging of KDE and Qt packages to work without QtWebEngine (which, > as mentioned by Elyzabeth, is probably not even non-free even if > Chromium were). > > [0] > https://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/[email protected]#chromium-browser > [1] > https://support.mozilla.org/t5/Video-audio-and-interactive/Watch-DRM-content-on-Firefox/ta-p/37423 > [2] https://packages.debian.org/stretch/chromium-widevine > [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418917 > [4] > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2017-01/msg00056.html > [5] > https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/ImportantGoogleChromeBugs > [6] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.html > [7] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=163116 > [8] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=80722 > [9] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=55058 > [10] > https://www.parabola.nu/news/chromium-blacklisted-to-respect-your-freedom/ > >> I earnestly hope this upcoming FSF article provides explicit and irrefutable >> proof of QtWebEngine being non-free. Proof of hard-coded connections and >> privacy leaks that I can verify for myself. A list of the non-free plugins >> and >> DRM shipped as a part of Qt because none are listed in the documentation. >> Any >> evidence of such obviously malicious behaviour that I can report to Qt and >> work towards fixing. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
