Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

> Respective identified code can be found below: > https://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/pkg-chromium-maint@lists.alioth.debian > .org.html#chromium-browser > > https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/tree/master/resources/patches > >

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

On 05/10/2017 04:48 AM, Nicolás Ortega Froysa wrote: > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 08:43:00PM -0400, Luke wrote: >> Stallman is sitting on an article which he was going to post, but said >> "It is going to take time. (March 5, 2016) >> The article does raise the issues, link to the infringing source

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

> Stallman is sitting on an article which he was going to post, but said > "It is going to take time. (March 5, 2016) Soon(TM). In the meantime, enjoy a slightly broken KDE. > The article does raise the issues, link to the infringing source code, > and mentions his proposed fix (GNU fork of

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 08:43:00PM -0400, Luke wrote: > Stallman is sitting on an article which he was going to post, but said > "It is going to take time. (March 5, 2016) > The article does raise the issues, link to the infringing source code, > and mentions his proposed fix (GNU fork of

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Now, I've a question, as qt5-webengine is based in Chromium, is it "Googled"? Because in that case it'd be a security flaw I think. El 09/05/17 a las 13:10, Nicolás A. Ortega escribió: > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 12:44:07PM -0300, Megver83 wrote: >>

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:55:09AM -0300, Megver83 wrote: > Is this really an internal problem of Parabola? I say this because, > what if other distros adopt qt5-webengine? then it will become a > bigger problem not only for us, but for the other free distros too. > Maybe we should discuss this

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Is this really an internal problem of Parabola? I say this because, what if other distros adopt qt5-webengine? then it will become a bigger problem not only for us, but for the other free distros too. Maybe we should discuss this with the FSF and/or

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 10:20:48AM -0300, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > I'm in favor of supporting Iridium instead of Chromium. > > While people may argue that there are not enough proof that Chromium has > freedom issues, I think it would be more risky if we were to overlook > the issue.

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

I'm in favor of supporting Iridium instead of Chromium. While people may argue that there are not enough proof that Chromium has freedom issues, I think it would be more risky if we were to overlook the issue. -- - [[https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno]] - Palestrante e consultor sobre

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

Isaac David writes: > I think _little_ or _much_ evidence aren't the right quantifiers to > approach this issue. a single piece of evidence would suffice, whether > for Chromium or any other software. also, we should be cautious not to > redefine things in order to

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

I think that a possible reconsideration of Iridium Browser should be a good idea. Nowdays, this Chromium fork made great efforts to distill the Chromium Browser, separating the free software components from the blur features that Google and/or other contribuitors embedded:

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

I think _little_ or _much_ evidence aren't the right quantifiers to approach this issue. a single piece of evidence would suffice, whether for Chromium or any other software. also, we should be cautious not to redefine things in order to spare their faults; that would simply beg the question of

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

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. 樂 On 17/03/17 18:37, Nicolás A. Ortega wrote: > I have been following this issue for a

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

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

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

As a KDE user and a casual coder, I have been very interested in this article. Have I missed it, or is it still coming soon? > QTWebengine [...] is the entire Chromium browser, which is non-free. No, it is not. To quote the Qt devs: [0] > Yes, we remove a large amount of code from Chromium.

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 That's a good idea, but what about Iridium? maybe we could fork it, and make a replacement for QTWebengine, which can also be used for other libre distros. Now QTWebengine will be blacklisted? El 06/03/17 a las 21:13, Luke escribió: > On

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

On 03/07/2017 12:08 AM, fauno wrote: > André Silva writes: > >> Per Richard Stallman, we are removing QTWebengine. It is the entire >> Chromium browser, which is non-free. > what are those subtle flaws? > The article hasn't been published yet, it should be announced on FSF

Re: [Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

André Silva writes: > Per Richard Stallman, we are removing QTWebengine. It is the entire > Chromium browser, which is non-free. what are those subtle flaws? -- :O signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Dev mailing

[Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws

Per Richard Stallman, we are removing QTWebengine. It is the entire Chromium browser, which is non-free. Forwarded Message Subject: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2017 20:33:34 -0500 From: Richard Stallman Reply-To: r...@gnu.org