So basically it is in 'possibly free' category. (11:48:41 AM) quidam: in any case, bear in mind that we do not claim chromium to be non-free (11:46:53 AM) quidam: and I'm putting that pretty low in my priority list (11:46:33 AM) quidam: that would in any case come after someone really reviews the code This is a quote from an IRC chat we had about chromium a while ago: If google clears up the copyright it can probably be included.

It is just because some files are unverified we can't include it.

Trisquel will play webM which was free'd by google. If google releases clearly free software we include it. I haven't read every post but I don't see anything about specifically hating google. 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.

Many files in there have unknown copyright. 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.Īs far as the parts that are iffy look at ( ) which contains the copyright files. However the philosophies are totally different. 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. This article ( ) specifically deals with the difference. If you are confused about the distinction between open-source and free software check out this ( ) which contains some essays about free software.

Ubuntu ffmpeg codecs