Amin, Amin Bandali <band...@gnu.org> writes:
> Marius, if I understand correctly, you have summarized your patch with > respect to the following two issues: > > 1. Your patch strips out parts of Chromium that are /clearly/ nonfree > and proprietary (e.g. unrar per your example), and > > 2. Your patch addresses (or tries to) privacy concerns. > > But as far as I can tell, you have not addressed the concerns shared by > Bill and others about the situation with files in the Chromium codebase > that don’t have a clear license. So I’ll try to repeat/rephrase their > question(s): does your patch address the files with unclear license? > Does it strip out those files that don’t have a clear license? Can we > be certain that the Chromium built from your patch explicitly *only* > contained free software? Can you point out one or more files with an unclear license? Do we have any reason to distrust what's written in the LICENSE file?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
