[Dev] [RFC] Let's solve the Chromium freedom issues, definitively

[Megver83]

El 31-05-20 a las 01:25, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli escribió:
> As I understand the issue, if we end up being obligated to rely on
> Chromium to get more and more things working, it would would mean that
> we would be accepting Google's design decisions, and patching around
> them would probably require a (constant) amount of work that is way
> bigger than the constant amount of work that would be needed to fix
> Gecko based browsers.
> 

Now that you mention this, it sounds much better. The thing with
Chromium is that there are every time more programs and platforms
adopting it (Android Webview, Qt through webengine, electron, etc.).
Maybe right now it isn't too critical, yet, but that might change in the
future, and we might have to sacrifice many packages (like we are doing
now with some qt5-webengine dependant packages, which are mostly KDE
software). However, we have to first evaluate if it's more feasible to
free Chromium or free its "derivatives" separately (Android Webview and
qt5-webengine for instance, which, at first look, seems to be easier)

Regarding the qt5-webengine specific case, we could ask their devs if
they can consider moving it from Chromium web renderer (Blink) to Gecko.
Otherwise, we should do a research to find the problems to be solved
with it, and eventually patch it. Hopefully its devs will help us to
find any licensing issues, at least, or solve any doubt we have if we
encounter a potential freedom issue.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/attachments/20200531/24967377/attachment.sig>