According to Qt's wiki:
Quote:
Qt WebEngine uses code from the Chromium project. However, it is not containing all of Chrome/Chromium:
Binary files are stripped out
Auxiliary services that talk to Google platforms are stripped out
The codebase is modularized to allow use of system libraries like OpenSSL
We do update to the latest Chromium version in use before a Qt release. After a release some bug fixes and security patches are backported. For LTS releases of Qt we might also update Chromium in a patch level release.
|
And for all of the pieces QtWebEngine uses, it lists the third party licenses here:
https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtwebengine-licensing.html
So I understand there still might be concerns for Chromium on the whole and Electron, I am not sure why QtWebEngine is being painted with the same brush especially now after they have made things clear on their website and with all of the Licenses used by QtWebEngine pieces.
So are Sigil and PageEdit, post the port to QtWebEngine) actually in danger of being blacklisted on some Linux Distributions? Will that also impact Calibre with its "engine" port to QtWebEngine in the future?
The funny part is the primary reason we moved from WebKit to WebEngine was that the QtWebKit version was not regularly maintained and it suffered from huge memory leaks when any significant javascript was used, and had no security fixes in a long long time, etc. Even with annulen's work to update WebKit the first time, it was not really suitable for those reasons. And porting to QtWebEngine from QtWebkit is not trivial as each brings unique problems with it.
KevinH
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
The GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines considers chromium itself to be not-compliant because it is a huge, huge heap of code which contains e.g. non-libre code for unrar, various media codecs that require it to be built with --enable-proprietary-codecs, and generally code that has "unknown licensing". It is an 11 year old project which was not, originally, proactive about double-checking the licenses and dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's, so it is plausible there are interesting things lurking in corners.
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of...romium-browser
Its status is officially "unclear, therefore the GNU FSDG refuses to condone it". Some distributions take it on faith that Chromium developers say they have the right to all the code (minus obvious things like proprietary codecs or third_party/unrar/src/*.cpp) while others reject it entirely.
The standard reference for chromium (the place where the discussion about this issue began) is https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium...etail?id=28291
...
Qt WebEngine is another kettle of fish entirely. And here, FSDG-compliant Linux distributions are under the impression that WebEngine "embeds all of Chromium" and should therefore be tarred with the same brush as Chromium (whatever that brush may be, currently it is "I don't trust the licenses to be complete"). Meanwhile the Qt and KDE developers claim they disable and strip out tons of source, and the parts that they keep -- mostly lower level stuff -- aren't problematic even if Chromium itself is. Some background:
https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/1167
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374808#c4
https://lists.qt-project.org/piperma...ry/000409.html |