My new email to Jeff and Chris @ Google.
I have not yet included the security aspect. We may use it later.
----- Weitergeleitete Nachricht von h2@fsfe.org -----
Datum: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:53:20 +0100
Von: "Hannes Hauswedell" h2@fsfe.org
Betreff: Re: PDF-Plugin in Chrome
An: "Jeff Chang" jeffreyc@google.com
Cc: "Matthias Kirschner" mk@fsfe.org, "Pam Greene"
pamg@google.com, "Chris DiBona" cdibona@google.com
Since new versions of Chrome now ship the PDF-Plugin and I haven't
yet received any answer in the matter, I wanted to contact you again.
I am not sure if I could communicate our point well, we are very
concerned about Chrome including increasing portions of proprietary
code.
Since it contradicts many previous statements[1] and also other
recent moves like dropping h264-Support, we would like to know
whether this is an official change in policy or whether Google is
actively working on replacing the proprietary components with Free
Software for future versions.
As part of our pdfreaders-campaign we are successfully working with
government bodies and public institutions all over europe to remove
advertising for proprietary pdf-readers and/or add references to
PDFReaders.org [2]. By publishing the PDF-Plugin as Free Software you
could greatly assist the cause of creating awereness for Open Standards
and at the same time increase the visibility of your browser to many
users of public sector web-sites.
I understand you are very busy, but hope you will find the time for a
quick reply.
--
???????????????????????????????????????????
Best Regards, ? Free Software Foundation Europe ?? ?
Hannes Hauswedell ? German Team ?????? ?
? Coordinator for pdfreaders.org ?? ?
???????????????????????????????????????????
[1] Beside the blog quoted below, Chris DiBona also stated during
Chrome's initial release that the whole browser would be open-source:
http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/med_36.html
[2]
http://www.fsfe.org/news/2010/news-20101217-01.en.html
On Thursday 04 November 2010 Hannes Hauswedell wrote:
> Hi Jeff, hi Chris,
>
> thanks for your quick reply first of all!
>
> On a general note: While I understand your concern for your users'
> security, it worries me to see (more) proprietary code integrated into
> Chrome and the code-base of Chrome and Chromium dividing.
> This seems bad, from multiple angles. Current Free Software users will
> perceive this as being offered only a "Light"-Version of the original
> product and feel that their platforms are not real target platforms.
> Current Chrome users thinking of switching to a Free Operating System,
> will perceive these systems as inferior, because less functionality is
> available (most Free Operating System ship Chromium, not Chrome).
> In the whole Google creates the impression, that Software Freedom or
> "Open Source" is not that crucial, that "Open Core" (systems that build
> on Free Software core components, but rely on proprietary add-ons or
> plugins) is sufficient. This is very different from the message
> originally conveyed with the release of Chrome/Chromium and stated by
> various Google employees at different occasions.
>
> In this particular case Chrome encourages users to display PDFs with
> proprietary software and thereby impedes the adoption of Free readers.
> We are currently trying to make a point, that "Closed-Source", trade-
> secrets, patents and the like are *not* necessary to view these files,
> because they are published in an Open Standard.
>
> Google could play an important role in helping to spread this message.
> After all, why should something rendering HTML be Free Software, but
> something rendering PDF need not be?
> By publishing the plugin as Free Software or negotiating with your 3rd
> party to do so, Google could also help the technical progress and
> improve standard compliance in other Free Software PDF-Readers. This
> would strengthen PDF's perception as an Open Standard and increase
> inter-operability.
>
> Quoting a famous post from your official blog: "Would open sourcing this
> code promote the open Internet? Would it spur greater user, advertiser,
> and partner choice? Would it lead to greater competition and innovation?
> If so, then you should make it open source."
>
> We really think this is the case here and hope to further work towards
> these ends together with you.
> --
> ???????????????????????????????????????????
> Best Regards, ? Free Software Foundation Europe ?? ?
> Hannes Hauswedell ? German Team ?????? ?
> ? Coordinator for pdfreaders.org ?? ?
> ???????????????????????????????????????????
>
>
> On Wednesday 03 November 2010 01:21:32 Jeff Chang wrote:
>> [+Chris DiBona, Google's open-source programs manager]
>>
>> Hi Hannes,
>>
>> Here's some more info which hopefully sheds some more light on the
>> situation. In June, we released an updated version of Google Chrome
>> that incorporates an integrated PDF viewer (
>>
http://blog.chromium.org/2010/06/bringing-improved-pdf-support-to-goo
>> gle.html). This feature provides users with greater security, faster
>> rendering of PDF content and a simpler user experience. Since the
>> technology for the PDF viewer is licensed from a third party, we are
>> unable to open source the code for it at this time or include it
>> with open source Chromium builds. While we found this particular
>> vendor to be the best option that meets all of our goals for the
>> feature, there are many other open source PDF viewers and Chrome
>> extensions that developers can include in their own versions of
>> Chromium.
>>
>> best,
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Hannes Hauswedell
h2@fsfe.org wrote:
>>> Dear Jeffrey,
>>>
>>> I am Hannes of the German chapter of the Free Software Foundation
>>> Europe. I contacted Pam Greene on details regarding the PDF-Plugin
>>> in Chrome/Chromium. Maybe you can help us with the matter
>>> discussed below.
>>>
>>> Thank you very much,
>>> --
>>>
>>> ??????????????????????????????????????????
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Best Regards, ? Free Software Foundation Europe ??
>>> ? Hannes Hauswedell ? German Team
>>> ?????? ?
>>>
>>> ? Coordinator for pdfreaders.org ?? ?
>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????
>>>
>>> On Monday 01 November 2010 03:20:07 Pam Greene wrote:
>>> > Dear Hannes,
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for your note. The PDF plugin is not my area of specialty,
>>> > but Jeffrey Chang (jeffreyc@google.com) should be able to help
>>> > you find the information you need.
>>> >
>>> > Best regards,
>>> > - Pam
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Hannes Hauswedell
h2@fsfe.org
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > Dear Pam,
>>> > >
>>> > > Max Senges gave us your contact details, regarding the
>>> > > PDF-Plugin in Chrome / Chromium. As you might be aware, we
>>> > > have launched a web-site and campaign regarding Free Software
>>> > > alternatives to Adobce Acrobat:
http://pdfreaders.org
>>> > >
>>> > > As there has been little information following the original
>>> > > announcement of embedded PDF support in Chrome, we were
>>> > > wondering whether the plugin is licensed under the same terms
>>> > > as the rest of the browser. Now it has recently been stated
>>> > > [1] that this is not the case.
>>> > >
>>> > > Can you further comment on that? We were surprised to read that
>>> > > with all of Google's commitment to Free Software in recent
>>> > > times (including a Browser, two operating systems?), a
>>> > > PDF-Plugin is not "under your control". (jam@chromium.org)
>>> > >
>>> > > We would really like to able to recommend a cross platform Free
>>> > > Software web browser, that has integrated Free pdf support. In
>>> > > our ongoing campaign to remove recommendations for Acrobat on
>>> > > government and public sector web-sites and/or adding links to
>>> > > pdfreaders.org, we are confident of increasing visibility of
>>> > > the software recommended on our site. --
>>> > >
>>> > > ???????????????????????????????????????
>>> > > ????
>>> > >
>>> > > Best Regards, ? Free Software Foundation Europe
>>> > > ?? ? Hannes Hauswedell ? German Team
>>> > > ?????? ?
>>> > >
>>> > > ? Coordinator for pdfreaders.org ??
>>> > > ?
>>> > > ??????????????????????????????????????
>>> > > ?????
>>> > >
>>> > > [1]
>>> > >
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=50852#c16
>
>
----- Ende der weitergeleiteten Nachricht -----