[directory-discuss] [gnu.org #1430355] DRM free version of Firefox is available at Moz Directory

[Therese Godefroy via RT]

Le Jeu 12 Sep 2019 11:24:18, bill-auger@peers.community a écrit :
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 04:38:01 -0400 Therese wrote:
> > don't expect the basic users
> > to take free software seriously if
> > the criteria vary depending on the provider
> 
> how else could it possibly be? - "free software" is not a law of
> nature nor an authoritative mandate - these distro guidelines
> exist to help people make decisions about what they choose do
> with their computers - concrete definitions are not essential to
> that decision - the general criteria of computing freedom is
> quite obvious and simple to understand - can i study the source
> code to learn how it makes my computer behave? - can i modify and
> replace that software if i would like my computer to behave
> differently? - if the answer to either of those is "no"; then
> clearly, one's "freedom" is impeded regarding their use of that
> software - no definitions need be carved in stone in order to
> determine that
> 
> it should not go without saying BTW, that the answer to both of
> those essential questions is a resounding "no" for most web
> pages, regardless of which web browser one uses - the mere use
> of any web browser with javascript enabled, is inherently
> dubious from the software freedom perspective

OK, but implementing javascript is not what makes a browser nonfree.
 
> in the end, the decision is upon each computer user, depending
> on their personal sensibilities - the distro guidelines are there
> for everyone to read; and each person can decide which is most
> agreeable
> 
[...]
> seeing as the original topic of this thread was about suggesting
> a web browser to users of proprietary operating systems, and i
> see that entire premise as mis-guided; perhaps one of my
> infamous analogies would be illuminating - to suggest that
> someone using a proprietary operating system should use icecat,
> is like suggesting: "i noticed that you have invited a pack of
> rabid wolves carrying torches into your dynamite factory. i
> suggest that you give them a flea bath. fleas are known to be
> pests."
> 
> regardless of what anyone thinks about proprietary vs. free
> software, that suggestion is ridiculous, according to my lonely
> opinion - if the goal is for users of proprietary operating
> systems to take free software seriously, then its easy to argue
> that such ridiculous suggestions work against that goal
> 

The original question was: is a DRM-free build of Firefox free
software or not?

Citing RMS [0]:
"Firefox's code is free; Firefox as such is nonfree because of its
trademark rules, but you can make it free by changing the name and
the logo. Firefox itself does not do the DRM."
[0] https://rt.gnu.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=1425389

It seems that you are trying to apply the FSDG criteria to
situations where users have clearly chosen to make compromises with
freedom (or simply don't know anything about free software). I
thought the whole point of the free-software replacements page was
to help these users slowly move away from nonfree software. For
them, I think the Mozilla trademark rules are not a real constraint
(not for me either, by the way). And in the unlikely event they
would like to make a Firefox variant and distribute it, they can
change the name and the logo.