Package: chromium chromium-driver chromium-l10n chromium-lwn4chrome chromium-shell
Tag: [uses-nonfree]
Reference: http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines#chromium-browser
Short description: (1) Copyright or license of some code is unclear; (2) Links to proprietary plugins
Proposed solution: drop
Replacement: Iridium Browser as possible replacement (https://iridiumbrowser.de)
Notes:
Description
Status | Assigned | Task | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Open | jonas.smedegaard | T57 [multiple issues] chromium | ||
Invalid | jonas.smedegaard | T241 chromium - promotes non-free NVIDIA driver via (embedded copy of) libxnvctrl |
Event Timeline
@mak how do you feel about this one. I don't feel easy to take and patch but maybe some users want chromium thus we would need to package iridium which again is not something I feel happy about it. I think dropping it will not create big issue in archive as chromium is pretty much self-contained but again, I am wondering how users would feel about it (or should we take it as granted that purebrowser is awesome and there is still epiphany, midori etc)?
@mak remove and block from re-entering the chromium package from archive as GNU-libre ML is pointing this out.
@zlatan.todoric LibreOffice build-depends on chromium, so this will be quite annoying.
Package is removed from PureOS now, but we will need to find a solution for LO...
@mak Please stop block chromium - it does not contain non-free code and is no longer unclear about licensing.
If I remember, Chromium is not packaged on Trisquel due to more problems but I am not sure.
I think there is still a similar problem with Chromium like https://tracker.pureos.net/T663 due to Google dependence/promotion.
@EchedeyLR Thanks for investigating. Please however report any concrete findings as separate issues.
Also see https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Review:Chromium-REV-ID-1 or https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Talk:Chromium (the first link might be moved to the last one). Iridium Browser suffers from the same issues (this is described in the references). Also as described there, none of the lists is exhaustive, as we/volunteers from FSD lack some contributors specific for this issue.
@adfeno I notice you mention lack of help examining, and also that you rely on licensecheck for your examination.
I am the current author and maintainer of Licensecheck: Suggestions for improvements to that tool is much appreciated - please file bugreports against the Debian package "licensecheck".
This is a meta-issue tracking a bundle of issues, and as such is not in itself a Freedom issue (that it identified for each unblundled issue). Lowering priority accordingly.