QupZilla-libre?
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtwebengine-features.html
I was puzzled to what are nonfree from QupZilla for weeks, but ultimately I have now a moment to prove what few people here are discussing.
The only nonfree elements in QtWebEngine, hence QupZilla are PepperFlashPlayer libraries and few Chromium ones by Google for use in Chromium, we are here to just ask people here also contributing for Parabola, to liberate QupZilla (hence QtWebEngine) with simply and completely erasing this PepperFlashPlayer, Chromium tools, finally their every libraries, to be a candidate for Parabola into the ''libre'' pool.
Do the versions of QupZilla in Trisquel and Parabola have these non-free components?
Flidas (i.e. T8) has liberated QupZilla by erasing these Google nonfree libraries (Google has licensed Chromium into MIT and MPL but not GPL, mis-tolerating Chromium to the nonfree deps), but Parabola has not updated QupZulla since this March, this is here I am requesting Parabola to follow this. SCJ6, smart Cangjie generation 6 IME, is always missing in Parabola.
I have today invited few Fuckbook friends to Parabola and Trisquel to be their first few GNU systems, one hasnt priorly known what are free software, they are first of all GNU systems in PC like Parabola and Trisquel, and F-droid app centre in Androids.
Once he feels Parabola and Trisquel nice I will also need him to quit nonfree Gplay for Androids like PC, plus if present he will be always needed to throw his iOS devices.
No, the version of Qupzilla in the repo is still the version that uses QtWebKit; this is true even of Ubuntu 16.04. The engine switch was more recent. It's definitely insecure, though, because QtWebKit is insecure.
Are we sure that there is actually proprietary software in this, though? I know that it's a common meme to say that Chromium is not entirely libre, but no one ever backs this claim up with evidence (by pointing to examples of non-libre files).
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti