Ignacio Areta writes:
> I'm not a Debian user, but probably this question is related to Debian
Thank you for raising this issue. I agree this affects Debian.
> Also, the instructions to build Chromium states
> "Before you build, you should also install API keys."
Does this mean Chromium is not usefully modifiable without also
distributing that data? What important functionality requires the API
> And the terms of service of these APIs.
> And also, Debian is using these API keys (see lines 60-63)
> So, my question is: is the API keys terms of service compatible with
> DFSG? Two parts of these terms doesn't appears FOSS-friendly for me.
> "You will not sublicense an API for use by a third party.
> Consequently, you will not create an API Client that functions
> substantially the same as the APIs and offer it for use by third
This violates DFSG §8, “License Must Not Be Specific to Debian”. If
work is received by Debian under a license that does not extend
automatically to every recipient of Debian, that work is not DFSG-free.
> "You will not reverse engineer or attempt to extract the source code
> from any API or any related software, except to the extent that this
> restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law."
This violates DFSG §6, “No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor”.
If recipients do not have license to use the work (in this case, the API
key) for any purpose they choose, the work is not DFSG-free.
> BTW, Chromium depends of these APIs to use some Google's services,
> like Google Sync. But (it seems) Chromium can be compiled and used
> without these API keys too. What do you think about this?
I think that, provided Chromium is significantly useful absent those
non-free parts, then Chromium minus the non-free parts would still be
suitable for Debian.
\ “That's all very good in practice, but how does it work in |
`\ *theory*?” —anonymous
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
Archive: http:[email protected]