I also see firefox and others. I'll make a patch when I've time. Also ubuntu stuff, we don't need it, anyways, although those are for nonfree software, it won't affect since they are not available in Parabola. But that's not a reason to keep those files.

Us not having them also isn't a reason to remove them.

Is shipping apparmor profiles of nonfree software an FSDG violation? It's different than Linux having firmware names for non-free firmwares saying "MISSING /path/to/non-free-file", to which a person might reasonably go in search of /path/to/non-free-file. But the apparmor profile just sits there silently unless you trigger it first by installing the nonfree software.

You should ask licensing@fsf.org if this is really an issue.

this reminds me of issue #813

i can see how some mentions of nonfree software are more enticing than others, but it's hard to draw the line based on how discoverable that information is. i think intention is what matters.

in the case of archlinux-appstream-data, the package only installs icons and XML databases with not much more than application names and descriptions -- hardly more informative than apparmor profiles -- and it's used to feed programs like gnome-software, which will simply add an "install" button to that information (it has no effect for packages which don't exist in our repos).