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 YLwfCrdTzV7BFgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 17:36:55 +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 KDIYBrdTzV5ddgAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 17:36:55 +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 8DFA89403EA for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 17:36:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:32824 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jddVU-0008Ps-Q2 for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 26 May 2020 13:36:52 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41354) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jddSp-0004HN-Tq for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 May 2020 13:34:07 -0400 Received: from dustycloud.org ([50.116.34.160]:35190) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jddSn-0002wn-4e for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 May 2020 13:34:07 -0400 Received: from twig (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dustycloud.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5B4F26679 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 13:34:02 -0400 (EDT) References: <87v9l2thi5.fsf@dustycloud.org> <87y2pyfc3d.fsf@yamatai> <20200512192319.GA918@E5400> <9077d3bf-1f83-6e08-341d-7f7be5387f42@hyperbola.info> <87367nydku.fsf@dustycloud.org> <87o8qawqr7.fsf@dustycloud.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.3 From: Christopher Lemmer Webber To: guix-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe? In-reply-to: <87o8qawqr7.fsf@dustycloud.org> Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 13:34:02 -0400 Message-ID: <87mu5uwqgl.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 = 2020/05/26 13:34:03 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: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.01 X-TUID: 3TUZ3xMGtq0n (An obvious win from this also being that we will be able to have more Guix users running, on average, a more up-to-date on security browser more often.) Christopher Lemmer Webber writes: > [moving from help-guix to guix-devel] > > On help-guix this exchange occured when discussing trying to install > Vanilla Firefox... two things struck me: > > - Firefox's source code is itself free, but it doesn't follow the FSDG > (An assertion was made that Firefox was itself nonfree software, > but this seems like an inaccurate characterization. I agree it > doesn't follow the FSDG, however.) > - It is probably possible, with minimal changes, to resolve that. > > So this page explains the problem: > > https://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines > > "Problem: Recommends non-free addons and plugins; automatically downloads cisco's binary h.264 codecs" > > I agree the latter is a problem. The former is kind of maybe a problem, > but mostly because it isn't clear that it's happening to the user. > > However, I wonder if, with a matter of just two patches, this could be > resolved: > > - Patch out the automatic download of Cisco's h.264 plugin. > - Add a warning banner *above* the extensions page, or simply switch it > to the same one that Icecat already uses. > > Is that all that's necessary, then, to get "vanilla Firefox" in Guix? > It strikes me that with those two changes, the criteria would be met. > > (Yes, I know that IceCat also provides LibreJS and some other plugins, > and that's nice to have, but Guix already ships several other browsers > that do not have those plugins, so this does not seem to be a strict > impediment and I don't think it should be either. We could change the > default Firefox homepage to point at one that recommends installing some > of these plugins, if that would be helpful.) > > - Chris > > > Christopher Lemmer Webber writes: > >> 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. >>>>