[Dev] Is Iridium safe to use?

[Josh Branning]

Yes, on a wiki would be good/fine. :)

Unsure about any maintenance ...

Thanks again,

Josh

On 15/11/17 20:39, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> 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
>>
>