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

[David Hedlund]

A few links FYI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_by_Debian

See the "Re-discussion" section at https://lwn.net/Articles/676799/

https://fossforce.com/2017/02/great-debian-iceweasel-icedove-saga/

https://mozilla.debian.net/
https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=firefox
https://wiki.debian.org/Firefox


On 2019-09-13 18:13, Therese Godefroy via RT wrote:
> 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.
>
>