Re: [directory-discuss] FSF opinion on chromium, QtWebEngine, electron

[David Hedlund]

Should we add a Antifeature for https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Iridium ?

See https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:Antifeatures


On 2017-11-03 17:31, bill-auger wrote:
> i would like to ask about the FSF opinion of chromium and electron-based
> programs - as you probably know there was a big controversy this year
> over the chromium code-base and that caused parabola to remove and
> blacklist chromium and all QtWebEngine and electron-based programs - no
> one has heard any news of a change of opinion about this or any
> investigation so that is how it remains today because parabola wants to
> align with the FSF's opinion
>
> recently though users have been noting that there are a number of such
> programs listed in the directory[1][2] and the FSF has recently
> published an interview promoting the QtWebEngine-based qupzilla
> browser[3] so there are some mixed signals floating about and parabola
> has no clear answers to tell the users who want these programs restored
>
> has there been any change in the FSF opinion of chromium? if no, should
> those programs be removed from the directory? or if yes, could parabola
> restore them to their repos?
>
> [1]: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Visual_Studio_Code
> [2]: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Atom
> [3]:
> https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/the-licensing-and-compliance-lab-interviews-david-rosca-of-qupzilla