Amin,

Amin Bandali <bandali@gnu.org> writes:

> Marius, if I understand correctly, you have summarized your patch with
> respect to the following two issues:
>
> 1. Your patch strips out parts of Chromium that are /clearly/ nonfree
>    and proprietary (e.g. unrar per your example), and
>
> 2. Your patch addresses (or tries to) privacy concerns.
>
> But as far as I can tell, you have not addressed the concerns shared by
> Bill and others about the situation with files in the Chromium codebase
> that don’t have a clear license.  So I’ll try to repeat/rephrase their
> question(s): does your patch address the files with unclear license?
> Does it strip out those files that don’t have a clear license?  Can we
> be certain that the Chromium built from your patch explicitly *only*
> contained free software?

Can you point out one or more files with an unclear license?  Do we have
any reason to distrust what's written in the LICENSE file?