On 01/10/2017 01:17 AM, Julie Marchant wrote: > 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. > _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".
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
