Re: [Dev] Is Iridium safe to use?

[bill-auger]

there is no point to scrutinize iriduim (or ungoogled or any other
derived browser) - their codebase is probably 99% similar to chromium;
so if any of these have licensing issues it would be most likely what
they derive from chromium - i would not begin to look at derivatives or
qtwebengine until the issues with chromium are fully understood

if actual notable problems are discovered in chromium, then
the next step would be to report them to the chromium team - if chromium
fixes the problem, then all down-streams will surely take the fix
without question

once the chromium search is completed exhaustively and no problems are
found, or if problems were found and reported, but refused or neglected,
then and only then it may be worthwhile to compare the results against
derived browsers and qtwebengine and ask them to fix the problems in
their forks




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Is Iridium safe to use?

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

2017-11-15T13:12:23-0800 jc_gargma wrote:
> When you post the results of QtWebEngine, please cc 
> qtwebeng...@qt-project.org 
> so that they are not left out of the loop this time.
> Qt is a friend to the free software community. Please give them the chance to 
> fix the issues.
>
>
> -jc

Could someone plese help? It mostly involves doing the same as we are
doing for Chromium ([1]) and for Discourse ([2]) --- see the tools used
to evaluate the entries, the results I posted there are currently only
in raw, so there is lots of false-positives, but the hints for the tools
and methos should prove useful.

I'm somewhat overworked already, so I can't take any more
entries/packages/software to evaluate.

For all the entries that need [re]evaluation, see [3]. There might be
more to add to [3], but I'm not aware of any currently.

[1] .

[2] .

[3] 
.

-- 
- https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
  gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
  instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
  Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
  GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
  (apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Is Iridium safe to use?

[Josh Branning]

That's marvelous, thanks again,

Josh

On 30/11/17 12:02, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:

See the update in the related thread. I'm seeding the text file.

2017-11-15T20:08:35+ Josh Branning wrote:

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

___
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

Re: [Dev] Is Iridium safe to use?

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

See the update in the related thread. I'm seeding the text file.

2017-11-15T20:08:35+ Josh Branning wrote:
> 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
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Is Iridium safe to use?

[Josh Branning]

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  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]
.

[2]
.

Josh Branning  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

Re: [Dev] Is Iridium safe to use?

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

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  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]
>> .
>>
>> [2]
>> .
>>
>> Josh Branning  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
>

-- 
- https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
  gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
  instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
  Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
  GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
  (apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Is Iridium safe to use?

[jc_gargma]

> I'll try doing the same steps for Iridium and QtWebEngine.
When you post the results of QtWebEngine, please cc qtwebeng...@qt-project.org 
so that they are not left out of the loop this time.
Qt is a friend to the free software community. Please give them the chance to 
fix the issues.


-jc


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Is Iridium safe to use?

[Josh Branning]

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] 
.

[2] 
.

Josh Branning  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

Re: [Dev] Is Iridium safe to use?

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

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] 
.

[2] 
.

Josh Branning  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

Re: [Dev] Is Iridium safe to use?

[Josh Branning]

On 15/11/17 16:42, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:

I also have contributed to that thread on directory-discuss mailing
list.

I hope it helps somehow. ;)

bill-auger  writes:


there is an open issue about this on the parabola bug tracker that you
can watch if you like

https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/1167

i asked donaldr about this last week and he asked that i post to the FSD
mailing list so hopefully that will re-kindle some discussion -
unfortunately no one from the FSF has commented on it so that's still
where it stands today

this issue is almost 10 years old now and it seems highly doubtful that
it will be resolved ever - if parabola is waiting for the FSF to declare
chromium to be free then parabola will probably be blacklisting chromium
and all qtwebengine-based and electron-based programs forever

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-11/msg1.html

___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev




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

Re: [Dev] Is Iridium safe to use?

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

I also have contributed to that thread on directory-discuss mailing
list.

I hope it helps somehow. ;)

bill-auger  writes:

> there is an open issue about this on the parabola bug tracker that you
> can watch if you like
>
> https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/1167
>
> i asked donaldr about this last week and he asked that i post to the FSD
> mailing list so hopefully that will re-kindle some discussion -
> unfortunately no one from the FSF has commented on it so that's still
> where it stands today
>
> this issue is almost 10 years old now and it seems highly doubtful that
> it will be resolved ever - if parabola is waiting for the FSF to declare
> chromium to be free then parabola will probably be blacklisting chromium
> and all qtwebengine-based and electron-based programs forever
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-11/msg1.html
>
> ___
> Dev mailing list
> Dev@lists.parabola.nu
> https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

-- 
- https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
  gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
  instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
  Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
  GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
  (apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Re: [Dev] Is Iridium safe to use?

[bill-auger]

On 11/10/2017 03:14 PM, happy gnu wrote:
> But what about iridium?

there is an open issue about this on the parabola bug tracker that you
can watch if you like

https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/1167

i asked donaldr about this last week and he asked that i post to the FSD
mailing list so hopefully that will re-kindle some discussion -
unfortunately no one from the FSF has commented on it so that's still
where it stands today

this issue is almost 10 years old now and it seems highly doubtful that
it will be resolved ever - if parabola is waiting for the FSF to declare
chromium to be free then parabola will probably be blacklisting chromium
and all qtwebengine-based and electron-based programs forever

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-11/msg1.html



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev