[Dev] Fwd: Re: Article: Chromium's subtle freedom flaws
Elyzabeth von Reuenthal
elyzabethvonreuenthal at iserlohn-fortress.net
Fri Mar 17 15:43:20 GMT 2017
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: 
> Yes, we remove a large amount of code from Chromium. Note in particular we
> are using the Chromium content API, not the Chromium browser implementation,
> which means we are a step lower that most Chromium forks.
If QtWebEngine is Chromium, then Thunderbird is Firefox because it also uses
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.
As it stands however, these allegations have been circulating around for a
good while, and I have yet to see a single one supported by hard evidence.
That rumours continue to propagate despite the assurances of Qt developers to
the contrary is making this removal seem like it has more to do with waging
the GTK/Qt holy war than it does about freedom.
The removal of QtWebEngine has also broken the KDE kontact suite that remains
in the repositories. KMail and akregator segfault from missing dependencies.
Assistant (Qt documentation viewer, in qt5-tools) will also break soon with
the deprecation and removal of QtWebKit.
If QtWebEngine has to die, I will accept that, but only if it is sentenced for
it's own crimes, and not the crimes of Chromium.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Dev