[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [directory-discuss] FSF opinion on chromium, QtWebEngine, electron
|
From: |
bill-auger |
|
Subject: |
Re: [directory-discuss] FSF opinion on chromium, QtWebEngine, electron |
|
Date: |
Sun, 5 Nov 2017 07:10:10 -0500 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 |
On 11/05/2017 04:02 AM, David Hedlund wrote:
> Should Iridium be removed due to nonfree QtWebEngine?
david - it is the very point of this thread to determine that - as i
said, i gave atom and vscode only as examples - AFAIK this issue equally
affects all software derived from chromium, qtwebengine, or electron -
that includes irridium, ungoogled chromium, atom and vscode, qupzilla,
riot matrix, the qtwebengine library itself, and countless other programs
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- [directory-discuss] FSF opinion on chromium, QtWebEngine, electron, bill-auger, 2017/11/03
- Re: [directory-discuss] FSF opinion on chromium, QtWebEngine, electron, David Hedlund, 2017/11/04
- Re: [directory-discuss] FSF opinion on chromium, QtWebEngine, electron, bill-auger, 2017/11/04
- Re: [directory-discuss] FSF opinion on chromium, QtWebEngine, electron, David Hedlund, 2017/11/05
- Re: [directory-discuss] FSF opinion on chromium, QtWebEngine, electron,
bill-auger <=
- Re: [directory-discuss] FSF opinion on chromium, QtWebEngine, electron, Adonay Felipe Nogueira, 2017/11/14
Re: [directory-discuss] FSF opinion on chromium, QtWebEngine, electron, Adonay Felipe Nogueira, 2017/11/14
Re: [directory-discuss] FSF opinion on chromium, QtWebEngine, electron, Adonay Felipe Nogueira, 2017/11/25