From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id EGhcHNEnzF6acwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 20:17:21 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id aN5QGNEnzF4EJAAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 20:17:21 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFF6694042C for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 20:17:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:39268 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jdJXD-00020M-Qx for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 25 May 2020 16:17:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58326) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jdJX4-0001vS-G2 for help-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2020 16:17:10 -0400 Received: from dustycloud.org ([50.116.34.160]:57862) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jdJX1-0005Jp-VG for help-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2020 16:17:10 -0400 Received: from twig (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dustycloud.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7350265C7; Mon, 25 May 2020 16:17:05 -0400 (EDT) References: <87v9l2thi5.fsf@dustycloud.org> <87y2pyfc3d.fsf@yamatai> <20200512192319.GA918@E5400> <9077d3bf-1f83-6e08-341d-7f7be5387f42@hyperbola.info> User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.3 From: Christopher Lemmer Webber To: Adonay Felipe Nogueira Subject: Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe? In-reply-to: <9077d3bf-1f83-6e08-341d-7f7be5387f42@hyperbola.info> Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 16:17:05 -0400 Message-ID: <87367nydku.fsf@dustycloud.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=50.116.34.160; envelope-from=cwebber@dustycloud.org; helo=dustycloud.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/25 16:17:06 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: help-guix@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: help-guix@gnu.org Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of help-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=help-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.01 X-TUID: X2KocnMFgBrV I'm not sure it's really accurate to categorize asking for a vanilla copy of firefox, which might not comply with the FSDG, as nonfree software. The primary issue with Firefox that makes it qualify as "nonfree" is that the add-ons tool brings you to something that might guide a user towards nonfree software right? Thus I think this isn't exactly correct framing, since firefox itself isn't nonfree? There is a difference if I, as a user, install Firefox as free software, and I am aware of the issue with the default extensions kit, and end up installing no nonfree software on my computer, right? Am I missing something? What makes Firefox itself nonfree (which I think is not quite the same thing as not compliant with the FSDG)? Adonay Felipe Nogueira via writes: > I came late to this issue, but I think this should have been posted on > development mailing list. It's not good if we use the general help list > to foster non-free software like Firefox or those which are third-party > package managers with no default repository explicitly commited to > following the GNU FSDG. > > Furthermore, to ease the sides of both the thread starter and the > community, I'm taking a simplification in that I'm considering the use > of such non-free software for purpose of developing or improving a free > replacement. That means I'm not discussing the merit of whether the > question should or shouldn't have been answered the way it was. > > One must be remind though, that the GNU FSDG isn't only about the > packages distributed (software, documentation, text fonts, etc), but > also about the community, and this is one of the things that keep Debian > out of the list of free system distributions. > > Em 12/05/2020 16:23, Efraim Flashner escreveu: >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:31:02PM +0200, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote: >>> >>> Christopher Lemmer Webber skribis: >>> >>>> Anyone have a package definition (or channel) for a recent vanilla >>>> firefox? >>>> >>>> I understand the decision to prefer distributing Icecat instead in Guix >>>> proper, but I need a more recent version of things... I suspect others >>>> sometimes do too. I have a feeling at least someone in the community >>>> has written such a definition... would you mind sharing? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> - Chris >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> There is a channel at >>> https://forge.monarch-pass.net/warrah/warrah-nonfsdg with a package >>> definition for Firefox 74.0.1. I haven't tested it though. >> >> Other options include using the now official flatpak copy of firefox. If >> you do go that route make sure to use the '--user' flag for flatpak so >> it doesn't segfault while trying to write to /var/lib/flatpak. >>