Yes, on a wiki would be good/fine. :)
Unsure about any maintenance ...
Thanks again,
Josh
On 15/11/17 20:39, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
I'd prefer a wiki or a temporary repository. Pads are OK but hard to
keep track of changes without a browser with enough resources and speed
to run the JS and live updates. I'll see where I can put the list.
I just notice that the FSD is having some downtime, perhaps they're
doing maintainance.
Josh Branning <lovell.josh...@gmail.com> writes:
Thank you for this.
Could I also request you upload the text file(s) somewhere? I can't
seem to download them from the lists.gnu.org archive, and that may be
a problem for people who wish to help try and clarify the licenses.
May also be worth creating a pad, and seeing if people are willing to
help if it's a long list?
Josh
On 15/11/17 20:00, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
See the response I gave ([1]) to the new thread in the directory-discuss
mailing list ([2]).
Apparently it didn't change much, also considering the ambiguities I
noted on [1]..
I'll try doing the same steps for Iridium and QtWebEngine.
[1]
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-11/msg00014.html>.
[2]
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-11/msg00001.html>.
Josh Branning <lovell.josh...@gmail.com> writes:
I think the main problem with chromium was that the licenses were/are
not clear enough for some of the files - in that it didn't pass the
ubuntu license checker [1]. What's also concerning, is that it's
suggested on the linked thread, that they are mixing GPL code with
other licenses. I don't think the GPL permits that (even if the code
is only distributed in source form). This may have changed since
... and I am not a lawyer.
Licenses aside, chromium apparently links with non-free plugins (not
sure if this is fixed in Iridium).
But long and short is it may be worth attempting to run the license
checker on Iridium and QTWebengine. I'm speculating that QTWebengine
probably has a higher chance of passing (if either of them actually
do), as there is some confusion over whether the whole engine is
included in the software [or not] ... it has been stated both ways.
I can see why it's difficult, because if code with unknown licenses
were accepted and then found to be non-free, it may subsequently
effect lots of derivative projects and code (inc. QTWebengine). I
guess this is why some people are nervous about giving chromium the
benefit over the doubt and including it on the basis of good faith.
Finally the bug in the link below has been closed, if it's a problem
that can be fixed I suggest someone attempts to "re-triage the issue"
if at-all possible.
[1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=28291
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
