Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

[Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:35:38 -0500
Luke <address@hidden> wrote:

> I would also like to see an updated audit of the code to ensure that
> the licensing issues mentioned previously have been fully resolved.
> There are still quite a number of open license bugs on their bug
> tracker:
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?can=2&q=licensecheck
As I understand this points out files that don't have copyright
headers.

In general I don't know if it makes sense to review each files for
copyright information or not. When adding new packages, I usually still
do some basic checks to understand what the precise license is, as a
GPLv2-only file will then make the combined work GPLv2-only. I'm also
assuming that files lacking a licenses statements defaults to the
project license. I also check for known potential issues like nonfree
firmwares and such when applicable. Is that enough or am I supposed to
do more checks?

However given the amount of projects that were combined into such
browsers it would at least make sense to make sure that the licenses
of each projects are compatible with each others.

In the past[2], there was even a combination of the 4-clause BSD
license with the LGPLv2. I'm not familiar enough with the LGPL licenses
family, was that compatible?

The 4-clause BSD license now seem gone[2], however there is still a
combination of the Apache 2.0 license with one GPL-2.0 only license for
jquery.hotkeys.js. Is the combination of the files covered by the
GPLv2-only and the Apache2 not considered a combined work in that case?

Also some files/projects are under the LGPLv2.1 while some other are
under the Apache2 license. Is that compatible?

What is the combined license of such browsers?

Note that I personally don't want to use the chromium browser to
browser the web, however as a lot of packages depend on qt5-webengine,
it would be nice to fix this issue in order not to stop being able to
use theses packages.

In some cases qt5-webengine may be used to access local resources like
documentation, so if some of the nasty features like DRM are removed,
and that it is not used to access resources over the Internet, as I
understand, there would not be any privacy harm.

References:
-----------
[1]https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/attachmentText?aid=95103
[2]https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/c/chromium-browser/chromium-browser_70.0.3538.110-1_copyright

Denis.

pgpuI6_VB8XXS.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature