[Dev] I am starting a review into whether QtWebEngine is free software

[Megver83]

El 16-04-19 a las 04:45, Andreas Grapentin escribió:
> 
> Hello Everyone,
> 
> You have read the subject line of this email, so you know what's up.
> 
> =================================
> What is the situation?
> =================================
> 
> As you all know, in the past, the freedom of QtWebEngine has been
> questioned repeatedly, to the point that parabola (and I believe most if
> not all the FSDG compliant distributions) was forced to remove it from
> its official repositories.
> 
> As a consequence, many programs that directly or through their
> dependencies depend on QtWebEngine needed to be blacklisted as well, or
> be modified to use the -- arguably outdated -- QtWebKit instead. At the
> moment, this impacts dozens of packages on parabola, which takes away
> from the experience of the distributions users. It also creates a
> considerable amount of work for the us maintainers to keep the modified
> programs up to date, which gets increasingly difficult as the developers
> move away from QtWebKit.
> 
> =================================
> What is the plan?
> =================================
> 
> What I am now trying to do is organize the existing allegations made
> against QtWebEngine, and conclusively determine whether or not
> QtWebEnigne is free software, and if it is deemed to not be entirely
> free, what steps need to be taken towards liberating it and towards
> creating a version of QtWebEngine that can be packaged and distributed
> by FSDG compliant distros.
> 
> I will *not* be investigating whether Chromium is free software, at
> least not right now. This review is only for QtWebEngine, and the subset
> of chromium that it embeds.
> 
> =================================
> Do you want to help?
> =================================
> 
> If you want to help me out, please forward me any existing allegations
> against QtWebEngine that I might have missed. I want this review to be
> conclusive, and it can only be complete if all complaints are
> sufficiently addressed.
> 
> If you want to get involved more actively, I am currently in the process
> of setting up a local fossology instance, but I could easily set up a
> public instance for a collaborative investigation instead. I am also
> setting up a git repository to organize the results of the review. If
> you want to get access to any of these, let me know.
> 
> 
> Come find me in #parabola on freenode for a chat.
> 
> 
> Best,
> Andreas Grapentin (oaken-source)
> 
> for the parabola GNU/Linux-libre distribution.
> 
> 
> --
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> my GPG Public Key:                 https://files.grapentin.org/.gpg/public.key
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at lists.parabola.nu
> https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
> 

Great! would be good to also see someone from other free distro or
GNU/FSF working with you. Pitifully, because of time, I can't help now

-- 
~Megver83

SIP: megver83 at sip.linphone.org
XMPP: megver83 at jabjab.de
Tox: megver83 at toxme.io
GPG: 0x227CA7C556B2BA78
GNUSocial: @megver82 at quitter.cl
Diaspora*: megver83 at diasp.org
Matrix: @Megver83:matrix.org
PixelFed: pixelfed.social/Megver83
PeerTube: peertube.xtenz.xyz/accounts/megver83

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 520 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/attachments/20190418/a823406f/attachment.sig>