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

[Luke]

On 05/09/2017 12:28 PM, Megver83 wrote:
> 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:
> >>
> >> I agree, there aren't proves yet
> >>
>
> > And there haven't been for the past few months since this has
> > started. I think it's high time we take at least qt5-webengine of
> > the blacklist. Once someone can actually prove something (which in
> > the past *few months* no one has managed to do) then it can go back
> > on the blacklist as we reevaluate evidence. Until then, any
> > discussion on what to do with 'non-free' chromium is just
> > pointless.
>

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 Ungoogled-Chromium). I sent
him the original draft article explaining the issue and he re-wrote
several portions of it.

As far as being "Googled", grep -r "google.com" should give you the
answer for any chromium based project. Separating the service from the
software requires dedication and patience. I would agree with using
ungoogled-chromium since they've done most of the heavy lifting and
already include Iridium patches along with several others.

Any program using these is already affected -
Chromium Embedded Framework (CEF), QTWebengine, and NW.js.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/attachments/20170509/1cbfdf47/attachment.sig>