Is Chromium and its FFMPEG codecs considered free software?
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
Do the Chromium browser and the chromium-codecs-ffmpeg qualify for free software under its BSD license? Obviously, it is the non proprietary alternative to Google Chrome and in many ways the license and branding is less restrictive than Firefox. I'm also asking about chromium-codecs-ffmpeg instead of chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-extra since the later allows the use of patented codecs even though it is based off of FFMPEG.
I am a member!
I think chromium contains source code of unknown origin and/or license. I dont think its non free per se but the unknown bits make it risky enough that free distros dont include it.
As for the codecs, ffmpeg can be built to include non free codecs (such as FAAC) so theres a possibility. If you can find a list of just what codecs chromium uses it will be easier to verify.
I think there is a list of licenses at http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html but as you said, some may be of unknown origin or license they aren't telling. Ubuntu also hosts Chromium at http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/chromium-browser in their universe which is thought to be free.
The chromium-codecs-ffmpeg contains Theora and Ogg Vorbis according to http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/chromium-codecs-ffmpeg. It also supports WebM (VP8) which it then nabs from the libvpx0 package at http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/libvpx0
I'm asking because I have grown to really prefer Chromium over Firefox in its look, speed and functionality. Of course if Trisquel doesn't add it, most of us can still install manually from the Ubuntu packages or a PPA.
According to http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Software_blacklist#chromium-browser, there are two problems: that the license information for some files is unclear, and that Chromium recommends non-free plugins.
It's been that way for a while though. Perhaps they've fixed the license problem by now. If so, all we'd have to do to be able to include it in Trisquel would be to have it only recommend free plugins.
"Chromium also recommends non-free plugins (like Adobe Flash.) Perhaps those parts could be removed?"
This should be ok with Chromium license right? Because if you do that with Firefox, then you are violating their license right? That explains why the variants like "abrowser", Iceweasel (which I use for Debian) and IceCat exist.
Btw, if you guys do decide to include a modified Chromium, the Ambience Refined theme would look pretty slick with your default Gnome theme: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ijofdknffioagibmjfnonfnhkhkilfdc?ct=author
I am a member!
Chromium is the non-branded version of Google Chrome. Chromium is to Chrome as "abrowser" is to Firefox.
This comparison is a little flawed. Chromium is as far as we know quasi-free/possibly-free and chrome is totally proprietary. Because of this while google says Chrome is the opensource version (their words) we really can't make any clear distinction between chrome and chromium because we don't have access to their code for chrome so all we have is their word. In reality they could be two totally different browsers that just have a similar interface but we have no way to tell.
Firefox --> abrowser is much clearer. abrowser is slightly modified version (non-free addons recommendation removed) and branding changed. However the source for both abrowser and firefox are free.
Not to say you are totally wrong just trying to clarify if it wasn't clear before.
I am a member!
Recommending non-free addons does not in itself make it non-free (although it does make it unsuitable for inclusion in Trisquel), and I'd like to think anyone who uses Trisquel and goes out of their way to install additional software knows enough about software freedom to stay away from the non-free addons themselves. So the only real freedom issue with Chromium itself is the unknown license status of some pieces. FSDG distros definitely should err on the side of non-free, but for whatever reason Debian and Ubuntu go the other way (I would have at least expected Debian to be a little more thorough).
Could you specify which parts are iffy? This is why I'm a little confused between open sourced and "free" software. Anyone can modify and compile the browser from source under a BSD license and use it for personal or business reasons. Are you worried that maybe one of those libraries has a license that would force you to pay for its inclusion down the road? Or do a lot of people just hate Google and won't use stuff tied to them even if it is lacking branding and accepts community code.
I think a rock solid webkit based browser would benefit not only Trisquel, but Linux in general. Midori is not even in the same league as Chromium and I usually uninstall it quickly after a clean OS install.
It doesn't have anything to do with people hating Google. Licensing is what makes software free or non-free. If the license for some parts of the software is unclear, then we can't really say it's free. If that issue is ever cleared up, then we will be able to.
Unfortunately, I don't know which parts they're talking about when they say the license is unclear.
If you are confused about the distinction between open-source and free software check out this (https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/essays-about-free-software) which contains some essays about free software. This article (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html) specifically deals with the difference. In short open source and and free software do share some things in common such as using the same licenses a lot of the time and similar development. However the philosophies are totally different. People who promote free software care about the freedom aspects (see the article on what free software is if this is unclear) while open-source philosophy is mostly concerned with producing powerful and useful software.
As far as the parts that are iffy look at (http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/universe/c/chromium-browser/chromium-browser_11.0.696.68~r84545-0ubuntu1/copyright) which contains the copyright files. Many files in there have unknown copyright. The source may be available but if the copyright is unclear we can't guarantee all 4 freedoms such as the freedom to share copies.
I haven't read every post but I don't see anything about specifically hating google. If google releases clearly free software we include it. Trisquel will play webM which was free'd by google. It is just because some files are unverified we can't include it. If google clears up the copyright it can probably be included.
This is a quote from an IRC chat we had about chromium a while ago:
(11:46:33 AM) quidam: that would in any case come after someone really reviews the code
(11:46:53 AM) quidam: and I'm putting that pretty low in my priority list
(11:48:41 AM) quidam: in any case, bear in mind that we do not claim chromium to be non-free
So basically it is in "possibly free" category. Unfortunately that doesn't meet our licensing requirements and until someone actually takes the time to do the work and sort through chromium's licensing mess (https://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html) including all the unknown files we can't include it until we are sure it is "truly free" vs "possibly free". Unfortunately we don't have the manpower to make that a high priority right now. Although if someone REALLY REALLY wanted that to be done they could make it a crowd funded task (https://trisquel.info/en/tasks) and offer up some cash for it.
As to your last statement I wouldn't disagree. Chromium would probably be a powerful addition. But this goes back to the difference between open-source and free software. Our primary concern is software freedom first and software quality second. So if parts of chromium are non-free and midori is free, well then we have to pick midori even if chromium is more powerful until the issues are resolved.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires