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

Megver83 megver83 at hyperbola.info
Sat May 30 00:03:47 GMT 2020

I think that one of the greatest problems with this is that users and
devs of FSDG distros are not joining forces, or better say: we are not
doing a coordinated effort to address this topic, but I think we all
know that. Coordinating efforts is in fact easier that how it sounds.
Someone (me? when I've the time, I'm super busy now, but just wanted to
share the idea) could create a GitLab/Gitea/Gogs repo (called
"chromium-fsdg-research" for example, and using sth. like Gitea give us
the ability to report issues in such project) with text files with all
of what we know about the issues related to Chromium, possible
solutions, and what is needed to solve this from once of all.

Here I'd link (as a start point):
* useful Parabola issues
* useful Debian/PureOS issues
* FSF pages
* Chromium documentation
* *concrete known issues* (e.g. the non-free widevine extension[0]) with
references and elaborated explanation (not just "license is unclear" or
simplistic stuff)

And one of the most important things: planning. My proposal for a plan
is to 1) collect and centralize all the needed info we can in this git
repo, 2) report the known issues in this repo's issue tracker, so we can
track the specific issues one by one, and look for a way to solve them,
for which we need to 3) invite experienced free software contributors
and programmers to actively participate in this project (looking for
issues and solving them), or anyone with the will and experience to help.

The purpose with this is to create a distro-agnostic project to solve
the Chromium problem, so then each FSDG distro will implement the
solutions in their specific ways. I think that ppl from Parabola, PureOS
and the FSF/GNU project will be the most interested and active ones
(Trisquel is developed by one person only, and idk if Hyperbola devs may
even care about this, since they are very strict with their browsers'
security and Chromium isn't the most secure one)

I'd like to know what do you think about this, and if you have another
idea or if you would change sth. of my proposal. This is just a draft of
an idea, if wanted to go more in detail I'd say, for example, that the
requirements for reporting an issue is to put the corresponding
references and proofs of that is being reported, or whatever. But first,
I want some feedback from the community, to see if there's some interest
in this, at least in Parabola :)


-------------- 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/20200529/00c367f1/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the Dev mailing list