Vanilla Firefox recipe?

Vanilla Firefox recipe?

[Christopher Lemmer Webber]

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

Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?

[Guillaume Le Vaillant]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 600 bytes --]


Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org> 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.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?

[Efraim Flashner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1154 bytes --]

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:31:02PM +0200, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote:
> 
> Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org> 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.

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira via]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2805 bytes --]

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 <cwebber@dustycloud.org> 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.
> 

-- 
* Ativista do software livre
	* https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
	* Membro dos grupos avaliadores de
		* Software (Free Software Directory)
		* Distribuições de sistemas (FreedSoftware)
		* Sites (Free JavaScript Action Team)
	* Não sou advogado e não fomento os não livres
* Sempre veja o spam/lixo eletrônico do teu e-mail
	* Ou coloque todos os recebidos na caixa de entrada
* Sempre assino e-mails com OpenPGP
	* Chave pública: vide endereço anterior
	* Qualquer outro pode ser fraude
	* Se não tens OpenPGP, ignore o anexo "signature.asc"
* Ao enviar anexos
	* Docs., planilhas e apresentações: use OpenDocument
	* Outros tipos: vide endereço anterior
* Use protocolos de comunicação federadas
	* Vide endereço anterior
* Mensagens secretas somente via
	* XMPP com OMEMO
	* E-mail criptografado e assinado com OpenPGP


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?

[Christopher Lemmer Webber]

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 <cwebber@dustycloud.org> 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.
>> 

Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 335 bytes --]

Adonay,

Adonay Felipe Nogueira via 写道：
> I came late to this issue, but I think this should have been 
> posted on
> development mailing list.

It was not related to the development of Guix or the GNU system, 
so no.  guix-devel is not an ‘FSDG-lite’ place to promote non-free 
software.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?

[Christopher Lemmer Webber]

[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 <cwebber@dustycloud.org> 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.
>>>

Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?

[Christopher Lemmer Webber]

(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 <cwebber@dustycloud.org> 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.
>>>>

Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?

[Leo Famulari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 965 bytes --]

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 01:27:40PM -0400, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
> 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.

I agree, it would be a good addition.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

Adonay is right that the project’s channels are not the place to discuss
third-party channels and distribution methods, especially channels and
tools that provide non-FSDG-compliant software.

As for Firefox, it pops up every now and then, but there seems to be a
lasting misunderstanding.  Firefox, as is, will not go into Guix because
it does not comply with several items of the FSDG, which the project is
committed to following (for example, by linking to Mozilla’s add-on
catalog, which contains non-free software.)

However, a version of Firefox stripped from the bits that make it
non-FSDG-compliant would be welcome.

This is essentially what IceCat is about, but IceCat is based on an LTS
version (I think that’s what you meant by “old”) and it enables various
privacy-enhancing plugins by default.

I think there were a few attempts to do that in the past, but they were
not completed, so we’re having this discussion again.  :-)
It might be that the “clean up” code we have for IceCat would work with
few modifications on the latest Firefox.

I hope this clarifies the situation!

Until then, happy web browsing.  :-)

Ludo’.

Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?

[Carlo Zancanaro]

Hey Chris,

On Wed, May 27 2020, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
> 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.

We would need to watch out for Mozilla's requirements to use the "Firefox" trademark[1]. Of particular note is the section titled "Modified Versions Require Prior Written Permission":

  The open source nature of Firefox and other Mozilla software allows you to freely download and modify the source code. However, if you make any changes to Firefox or other Mozilla software, you may not redistribute that product using any Mozilla trademark without Mozilla’s prior written consent and, typically, a distribution agreement with Mozilla. For example, you may not distribute a modified form of Firefox and continue to call it Firefox.

  Changes requiring Mozilla’s prior written permission include (but are not limited to):
   - Changing the default home page or adding bookmarks,
   - Adding, modifying, or deleting source files,
   - Adding, modifying, or deleting content from installer files,
   - File location changes,
   - Adding extensions, add-ons or plugins, or
   - Installing themes other than those available in the most recent stable version of Firefox available at Mozilla.org.

  If you wish to distribute a modified version of Firefox or other Mozilla software with Mozilla trademarks please contact us with your request at trademark-permissions@mozilla.com.

Carlo

[1]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/distribution-policy/

Re: Why Mozilla Firefox is nonfree? (was: Vanilla Firefox recipe?)

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1983 bytes --]

Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org> wrote:
> 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?

Nope.  Firefox, as distributed by Mozilla, is simply not a free software.  Just reread the agreement with Mozilla [0] you are supposed to abide.  You are _not_ free even to redistribute _exact_ copies of it, let aside distributing modified ones:

| You may distribute unaltered copies of Mozilla Firefox and other Mozilla software from Mozilla.org without express permission from Mozilla as long as you comply with the following rules:
|
|    — You may not charge for the software. That means:
|        · Distribution may not be subject to any fee.
|        · Distribution may not be tied to purchasing a product or service.

There are many other points there, that alone enough to render it nonfree.  My favourite one:

|   — When distributing you must distribute the most recent version of Firefox and other Mozilla software.

[0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/distribution-policy/

> Thus I think this isn't exactly correct framing, since firefox itself isn't nonfree?

As you see, it is.  You could build something very similar to Firefox from sources, of course, but it would not be Mozilla Firefox.  No much difference from Google Chrome in that regard.

But there is one difference, that is to credit of Google and that I would not underestimate — the free counterpart of their browser has a canonical name — Chromium.  While Mozillaʼs browser is anonymous and, unless are fine with adverting nonfree software, cannot be referred in any concise way; hence the whole zoo of rebrands: Icecat, Iceweasel, Fennec (F-Droid), Abrowser (Trisquel)...

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 247 bytes --]

Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?

[Christopher Lemmer Webber]

Carlo Zancanaro writes:

> Hey Chris,
>
> On Wed, May 27 2020, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
>> 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.
>
> We would need to watch out for Mozilla's requirements to use the
> "Firefox" trademark[1]. Of particular note is the section titled
> "Modified Versions Require Prior Written Permission":
>
>   The open source nature of Firefox and other Mozilla software allows
>   you to freely download and modify the source code. However, if you
>   make any changes to Firefox or other Mozilla software, you may not
>   redistribute that product using any Mozilla trademark without
>   Mozilla’s prior written consent and, typically, a distribution
>   agreement with Mozilla. For example, you may not distribute a
>   modified form of Firefox and continue to call it Firefox.
>
>   Changes requiring Mozilla’s prior written permission include (but are not limited to):
>    - Changing the default home page or adding bookmarks,
>    - Adding, modifying, or deleting source files,
>    - Adding, modifying, or deleting content from installer files,
>    - File location changes,
>    - Adding extensions, add-ons or plugins, or
>    - Installing themes other than those available in the most recent
>      stable version of Firefox available at Mozilla.org.
>
>   If you wish to distribute a modified version of Firefox or other
>   Mozilla software with Mozilla trademarks please contact us with your
>   request at trademark-permissions@mozilla.com.
>
> Carlo
>
> [1]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/distribution-policy/

I agree this is a concern and is in the list of things to address.

I forget, but I remember reading somewhere that Firefox's codebase does
ship in such a way where rebranding it isn't as hard as it used to be,
or that the development version already did have some of this branding
stripped out.  

Am I misremembering?
 - Chris

Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 883 bytes --]

Chris,

Christopher Lemmer Webber 写道：
> Am I missing something?  What makes Firefox itself nonfree 
> (which I
> think is not quite the same thing as not compliant with the 
> FSDG)?

Nothing.  There seems to be a misunderstanding that Mozilla's 
trademark policy makes the Firefox source code less or non-free, 
which isn't true.  There are plenty of reasons to dislike Mozilla; 
there's no need to change the definition of free software or the 
FSDG to serve that agenda.

I think you and Carlo have summarised it well: it's free software 
(yay!) but needs to be made FSDG-compliant (making doubly sure we 
rip out malware hooks like ‘EME’) to ship with Guix under a 
different name to protect Mozilla's brand.  I hope we call it 
Iceweasel like Debian does to avoid confusion, but it will be as 
vanilla as the FSDG allows.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

Re: Why Mozilla Firefox is nonfree? (was: Vanilla Firefox recipe?)

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira via]

As far as I know not even Chromium is free/libre, see https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Chromium . Also I would recommend all to ask the FSF about the freedom issues with Firefox. -- * Ativista do software livre * https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno * Membro dos grupos avaliadores de * Software (Free Software Directory) * Distribuições de sistemas (FreedSoftware) * Sites (Free JavaScript Action Team) * Não sou advogado e não fomento os não livres * Sempre veja o spam/lixo eletrônico do teu e-mail * Ou coloque todos os recebidos na caixa de entrada * Sempre assino e-mails com OpenPGP * Chave pública: vide endereço anterior * Qualquer outro pode ser fraude * Se não tens OpenPGP, ignore o anexo "signature.asc" * Ao enviar anexos * Docs., planilhas e apresentações: use OpenDocument * Outros tipos: vide endereço anterior * Use protocolos de comunicação federadas * Vide endereço anterior * Mensagens secretas somente via * XMPP com OMEMO * E-mail criptografado e assinado com OpenPGP Wed May 27 02:16:47 GMT-03:00 2020 Dmitry Alexandrov <dag@gnui.org>: Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote: > 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? Nope. Firefox, as distributed by Mozilla, is simply not a free software. Just reread the agreement with Mozilla [0] you are supposed to abide. You are _not_ free even to redistribute _exact_ copies of it, let aside distributing modified ones: | You may distribute unaltered copies of Mozilla Firefox and other Mozilla software from Mozilla.org without express permission from Mozilla as long as you comply with the following rules: | | — You may not charge for the software. That means: | · Distribution may not be subject to any fee. | · Distribution may not be tied to purchasing a product or service. There are many other points there, that alone enough to render it nonfree. My favourite one: | — When distributing you must distribute the most recent version of Firefox and other Mozilla software. [0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/distribution-policy/ > Thus I think this isn't exactly correct framing, since firefox itself isn't nonfree? As you see, it is. You could build something very similar to Firefox from sources, of course, but it would not be Mozilla Firefox. No much difference from Google Chrome in that regard. But there is one difference, that is to credit of Google and that I would not underestimate — the free counterpart of their browser has a canonical name — Chromium. While Mozillaʼs browser is anonymous and, unless are fine with adverting nonfree software, cannot be referred in any concise way; hence the whole zoo of rebrands: Icecat, Iceweasel, Fennec (F-Droid), Abrowser (Trisquel)...

X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 221 bytes --]

Dear listmaster,

is there any reason to have this content-filter enabled there?  Besides doing a good job of breaking body signatures (DKIM and GPG, if any), it also seems to produce a mess like this from time to time:


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 7071 bytes --]

From: Adonay Felipe Nogueira via <help-guix@gnu.org>
To: help-guix@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Why Mozilla Firefox is nonfree? (was: Vanilla Firefox recipe?)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 14:31:31 -0300 (GMT-03:00)
Message-ID: <225915422.1590600329049.org.dystopia.email@localhost>

As far as I know not even Chromium is free/libre, see https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Chromium . Also I would recommend all to ask the FSF about the freedom issues with Firefox. -- * Ativista do software livre * https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno * Membro dos grupos avaliadores de * Software (Free Software Directory) * Distribuições de sistemas (FreedSoftware) * Sites (Free JavaScript Action Team) * Não sou advogado e não fomento os não livres * Sempre veja o spam/lixo eletrônico do teu e-mail * Ou coloque todos os recebidos na caixa de entrada * Sempre assino e-mails com OpenPGP * Chave pública: vide endereço anterior * Qualquer outro pode ser fraude * Se não tens OpenPGP, ignore o anexo "signature.asc" * Ao enviar anexos * Docs., planilhas e apresentações: use OpenDocument * Outros tipos: vide endereço anterior * Use protocolos de comunicação federadas * Vide endereço anterior * Mensagens secretas somente via * XMPP com OMEMO * E-mail criptografado e assinado com OpenPGP Wed May 27 02:16:47 GMT-03:00 2020 Dmitry Alexandrov <dag@gnui.org>: Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote: > 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? Nope. Firefox, as distributed by Mozilla, is simply not a free software. Just reread the agreement with Mozilla [0] you are supposed to abide. You are _not_ free even to redistribute _exact_ copies of it, let aside distributing modified ones: | You may distribute unaltered copies of Mozilla Firefox and other Mozilla software from Mozilla.org without express permission from Mozilla as long as you comply with the following rules: | | — You may not charge for the software. That means: | · Distribution may not be subject to any fee. | · Distribution may not be tied to purchasing a product or service. There are many other points there, that alone enough to render it nonfree. My favourite one: | — When distributing you must distribute the most recent version of Firefox and other Mozilla software. [0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/distribution-policy/ > Thus I think this isn't exactly correct framing, since firefox itself isn't nonfree? As you see, it is. You could build something very similar to Firefox from sources, of course, but it would not be Mozilla Firefox. No much difference from Google Chrome in that regard. But there is one difference, that is to credit of Google and that I would not underestimate — the free counterpart of their browser has a canonical name — Chromium. While Mozillaʼs browser is anonymous and, unless are fine with adverting nonfree software, cannot be referred in any concise way; hence the whole zoo of rebrands: Icecat, Iceweasel, Fennec (F-Droid), Abrowser (Trisquel)...


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 247 bytes --]