Talk:Chromium

How come no revision has been approved for this page? Who has control to do that? -mdc

licensecheck report

This is a continuation of [1].

To generate the report, do:

git clone --depth 1 "https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git" "chromium"
cd "chromium"
licensecheck -c '.*' -r * > "../licensecheck_chromium.txt"

This report is based on commit df850bbd0966147f0857369252da8a6fc6c18253 and was generated with licensecheck from devscripts package version 2.14.1ubuntu0.1, available in the official Trisquel repositories, and as the version string implies, provided directly by Trisquel's upstream --- because no Trisquel-specific patches where made).

Also see my message in [2] to question whether these shorter-than-they-should license notices are really applicable.

One must note that the report is too heavy to be put anywhere in an online storage, so I prefer to distribute it through torrent, with DHT (no trackers), the magnet link is [3]. --Adfeno (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2017 (EST)

The following paths are under BSD-3-Clause modified by W3C (the license text is the same, just adding the name of W3C):

third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty/wpt/wpt/LICENSE.md
third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty/wpt/wpt/tools/wptserve/LICENSE
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/resources/LICENSE
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/LICENSE.md
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/2dcontext/tools/LICENSE.txt

The following paths are under BSD-4-Clause (the original one, which has the advertisement clause):

native_client_sdk/src/libraries/third_party/newlib-extras/netinet/tcp.h

As for the rest, licensecheck claims them to be all free/libre software licenses. However, this evaluation isn't over yet. Here are the things that I think need be done (of course we can remove or add items if there is proof, but as a non-experienced evaluator, this is the list I have right now):

• See what are the licenses of the paths whose lines end with "UNKNOWN", and what files are the source of the paths whose lines end with "GENERATED FILE".
• Do license check with a different version of licensecheck (different than the one Adfeno described) or with a different tool. This is important because the first licensecheck output displayed some incorrect results. However, due to the amount of bundling and the quantity of source files, Adfeno only re-checked the paths described in this message.
• Investigate [4].
  • Morever, test if the build result follows the licenses and provides complete corresponding source of the bundles.
• Since they choose to bundle stuff, see if the LGPL, MPL, and Ms-PL parts are modified compared to their originals. These checks will probably require downloading a full clone of the repository (this means also removing --depth 1) and a download of the originals. Be very specific to version/release numbers and revisions, remember to get the specific revision of Chromium that is being evaluated, and to try to find information about the exact version/release and commits of the LGPL, MPL and Ms-PL parts. If the modifications are local to Chromium, then it might require the resulting work to be copylefted.
• See if the GPL parts are indeed important for building or running the software.
• Investigate if the type of linking (static, dynamic, shared, etc.) that Chromium does (if it does such link) to the parts under GPL, LGPL, MPL, Ms-PL requires a license change.
• Attempt to download the source files using the method described in Chromium's website, and do the check based on that.--Adfeno (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2018 (EST)

As far as I can see, there's no need to download the source files using the method described in Chromium's website, it does exactly what we just did. --Adfeno (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2018 (EST)

On licensecheck

If you don't use Trisquel, I've put the devscripts sources from the 2.16.2ubuntu package here, and licensecheck itself here, for convenience. --Jadedctrl (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2018 (EST)

FSD Script Aid report

This report is still mostly in raw form. I simply used grep and an awk script to find which files are under the license in the nearest "LICENSE file" (the notices in some files make it easy to use grep to find each file that has these notices) and remove the files which have these notices and which don't have the JS-related flags set to 1. Morever, as far as I know, some files even though they have the JS-related flag set to 1, they aren't actually executed by a browser or read by a web server, this is the case for .c, .cc, .cpp, .gn, .gni, .h, .hpp, .java, .md and .mojom files.

The magnet link for the report is [5].