KHTML is BSD except for JavaScriptCore and WebCore. Blink doesn't use JSC at all and according to the BUILD file it only ever loads WebCore when running the test suite (it includes an explicit note "# This includes some test targets. Don't link into production!"
-
-
Replying to @codahighland @ewanm89
KHTML is 100% LGPL, you're thinking about WebKit which used KHTML as the basis for WebCore and JavaScriptCore. WebCore is, er, the core engine. Of course it gets linked in. //third_party/blink/public:blink -> //third_party/blink/renderer/core in the Chromium source archive.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Right, good point, that was a misstatement on my part, I did indeed mean WebKit, which is what Blink is a fork of. And I did miss that BUILD file, but I'm still not 100% sure it's a violation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The ffmpeg strings you found, for example, is BSD-license glue code written by Chromium engineers, not actual ffmpeg code. I've searched for strings that would have come from libavcodec and they're not there.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
As for Blink itself I think they're loopholing it via Section 7: "You may place library facilities that are a work based on the Library side-by-side in a single library" >>
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
<< "[...]Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work based on the Library, uncombined with any other library facilities" <-- this sounds like Chromium itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @codahighland @ewanm89
Only if the Google Chrome main binary, which is what links these things, is indeed 100% reproducible from the Chromium source only. If there is any secret sauce not included in Chromium, it doesn't qualify.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marcan42
Section 7 doesn't include reproducibility. It just says you have to announce and distribute the "uncombined" form of the "work based on the Library".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @codahighland
If you're distributing something else that doesn't compile to the same binary, then you're not distributing "the uncombined form", you're distributing something else.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marcan42
The whole thing is a bit handwavy. I think it can be interpreted either way and I think Google's lawyers are counting on being able to argue their interpretation if challenged.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think otherwise, because Google's lawyers' *own official advice page for Googlers* says you need to dynamically link (they don't mention the static linking + object files approach because nobody does that): https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#LinkingRequirements …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.