[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 <lovell.joshyyy at gmail.com> 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]
>> <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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at 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.