We cannot just add third party repos. We have rules about processes and tests that any package of Fedora has to pass. We cannot ensure this for third party repos. This has a security and stability background, but also legal reasons. We have to also exclude patented software, which is not equal to open source. Ensuring all this makes it necessary to control the repos we include by default.
If software fulfills our requirements, anyone can pick up the responsibility for its maintenance and put it into our processes so that it ends up in our own Fedora repositories. No third party repos necessary. If it does not fulfill our requirements, it cannot be in any repo that is contained in Fedora by default.
If your preferred browser is contained in one of our repos, you can install it as usual. And any spin/lab/edition can decide itself which of the contained browsers it makes to its default. At the moment, with your preferences towards Chrome-like, we have at least two already in our repository: Chromium and Falkon. I am not sure if any spin/edition has one of them as default browser. But feel free to suggest it to your preferred spin/edition, to give them incentives from a user.
However, as Scott already noted, there is an indicated tendency of developers and users towards Firefox at least as far as it concerns the Workstation. If you want to suggest your spin/edition something else, I suggest to focus on something that is already contained in our Fedora repos. But be prepared that other spins/editions have maybe a comparable tendency (I am not sure if the survey indicated spin/edition-specific).
as you can see brave also have its own repo it is opensource chromium base so why not replace chrome repo with brave as it is opensource.
i dont know much about license but it is mpl2.0 as far as i know and gpl and mpl is compatible
As noted above, open source and patented are two different things, and we have processes and tests any package in Fedora has to pass, and requirements it has to comply to. This cannot be ensured for third party repos.
Personally, I like that I can rely on these guarantees when deploying Fedora and its packages: they are a major attribute of Fedora, in general and against other distributions. Also, with Falkon we provide a browser that uses blink, maybe thatās an alternative for you if you want to have something with blink?
Anyway, by default adding+enabling third party repos we have no control of does not comply to our conduct. So my suggestion would be to close this topic. The original question of the topic seems to have been already tackled anyway.
then why we have chrome rpm repo in 3rd party repos.
i want to replace chrome repo with brave lets look into that if it can be done it is better for users even.
3rd party is the key here. That means repos that arenāt maintained by Fedora and, as such, repos that Fedora does not have direct control over. How users install and prioritize content from 3rd party repos is up to the user and how they want to manage their own system. If you want to run Brave, go ahead. Thereās no one stopping you. That doesnāt mean we should mandate everyone else run that or any other browser.
true but if that is the case then i can run do whatever want then what is the point of this discussion forum. i am discussing about if 3rdparty repo of chrome can be changed with other privacy respecting opensource app chrome is not opensource and brave is now whether you like or not providing opensource app makes sense like what we aim for with fedora
Hmmā¦ I think itās true that Fedora aims to promote open source. However, it is stated in Fedora documentation, āThe third-party repositories exist to provide access to additional software that may be necessary or important for users to have access to. This includes some proprietary software.ā
Chrome itself is important because of the status of Chrome as the most used desktop browser.
Not everyone can be convinced to use one typical kind of software product and there are many people opt-out using Brave for some reasons as well. Hence, I believe that adding Brave as a third-party repo without removing Chrome repo will be a better option.
Please consider the information on that page as a whole, and consider the linked information that complements the arguments, primarily this one.
Again, open source and patents are different things, and there are more conditions to fulfill (plus a clear case that this repo is really necessary for a noteworthy amount of users to convince a wg/sig). And third party repos will never be enabled by default. As indicated in the default browser discussion above: within the possible and allowed policies of Fedora, it is the decision of the edition/spin wg/sig.
@py0xc3, on my previous comment, I would like to stress the point of the importance of Chrome for some people, hence I was suggesting @frankjunior to recommend the addition of Brave third repo without removing Chrome repo. I knew and forgot to note that Fedora did not maintain the third-party repos. My apology for the matter.
this is true mainly due to google free ecosystem they have provided but stuffs are changing slowly mainly in EU countries and i know i will migrated to others. and people are understanding the privacy and stuff just look at meta so with chrome you cant expect privacy now in my opinion as chrome and brave both uses chromium and also some extra safety so why not provide a better chromium base at lease people should see what we aim for we should stick with opensource until something breaks. and in this case if you have opened both side by side you will notice both are same in speed but brave blocks 3rdparty cookies and web trackers. and some ads also now it can be opt in or out.
i also agree with this as there is always users want chrome they should have the support and we can also add brave
Just to avoid (another ) misunderstanding: the paragraph below the dividing line is meant in general, to finally end the points that seem to come up again regularly in this topic. It was not referring to you. Only the point about the considerations of the documentation before the dividing line was referring to you. So no worries.
Iām really skeptical about Braveās basic business model. It isnāt really about ending the advertising-and-privacy-evasion world weāve stumbled into. Itās about replacing that with what they promote as a slightly-better version of the same thing ā where theyāre at the center rather than Google. History suggests that if they succeed, the temptations that come from being in that position are too strong to resist ā look at what happened to Googleās ādonāt be evilā.
Plus, even if you donāt mind ads, it seems pretty sketchy to block ads that provide funding to the sites you are visiting and replace them with different ads that pay someone else.
i am starting with crypto yes brave uses something called bat crypto but it is off by default users have to enable that by themself and what i know about is brave shows ads if users enable to see them and brave then pay users with that crypto that you can withdraw or donate to projects those supports it like torproject
no this is wrong i think you have not used brave, brave does not block some ads just open duckduckgo and search for anything you will see ads just a example
and by default brave does not block ads like what you think you need to so aggressive mode to do so in that case it is a same for firefox you can add ublock or adguard
what i have seen is brave only blocks targeted advertising and data collecting ads are blocked.
and targeted ads are bad and if you know according to GDPR of EU and even apple blocks app tracking. brave allows analytics which are privacy respecting
and brave is becoming a privacy brand just like proton.me
also look at https://privacytests.org/
He isnāt wrong, it seems more likely that you arenāt familiar with their history. Replacing ads with their own ads was braveās original business model. Only it didnāt go over very well for obvious reasons. So they then shifted more fully into their crypto model. But that also had too limited of an audience. Then they decided they could get more traction if they focused on privacy and security and overnight the product marketing changed to be focused on that angle.
However, at that time, they hadnāt implemented the features they have today, they just claimed to be one even though they werenāt really. After claiming to be privacy-focused they were caught hard-coding a whitelist of facebook URLs. Really, we could spend days talking about all their missteps. There are many more.
My real issue with them though, isnāt that mistakes were made or that business models shifted. It is that whenever they were caught doing anything, they never accepted any culpability.
Putting all that aside, I still have the same question, why would Brave need to go in a 3rd party repo in the first place? Couldnāt is be in the actual repos if a packager wanted to package it? Is there anything blocking that from a legal or policy perspective?
We would have to do a review of whatās included, and of their trademark licensing terms. But assuming thatās OK, yeah, I donāt see anything that would be a show-stopper.
I would also prefer to have it packaged with our existing repos instead of adding more 3rd party repos (if that repo even fulfills requirements/convinces a wg/sig). However, obviously, the latter should be the evaluation and decision of the respective sig/wg (and therefore, the ā3rd party repoā alternative might be discussed with the respective wg/sig to end the loop in this topic).
Yet, concerning packaging brave for Fedora: I think before doing a review about if it fits our policies, it might make sense to identify if there is a packager who picks up that task? I am not sure if there is a strong support for that.
) misunderstanding: the paragraph below the dividing line is meant in general, to finally end the points that seem to come up again regularly in this topic. It was not referring to you. Only the point about the considerations of the documentation before the dividing line was referring to you. So no worries.
