[Dev] Is Iridium safe to use?

Josh Branning lovell.joshyyy at gmail.com
Wed Nov 15 20:08:35 GMT 2017

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?


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] <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-11/msg00014.html>.
> [2] <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-11/msg00001.html>.
> Josh Branning <lovell.joshyyy at gmail.com> 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 at lists.parabola.nu
> https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

More information about the Dev mailing list