Re: Pale Moon

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

If I'm not mistaken, Hyperbola has a subproject called Iceweasel UXP, which 
incorporates Pale Moon's UXP/XUL/XPCOM in Firefox, but removes all the 
problematic trademark, among other things.

Em 29 de novembro de 2022 17:36:39 BRT, Jason Self <j@jxself.org> escreveu:
>I think Pale Moon is not a good candidate for the Directory, and this
>is why. I don't intend for this to be an all-exhaustive list for all
>of the concerns about the redistribution license when someone is
>exercising Freedom #2; only to show that software freedom problems
>exist with it.
>
>Pale Moon has a similiar trademark problem with Firefox [0]:
>> There is NO CHARGE for the download or distribution of the browser
>> package.
>
>As explained in the Free Software Definition, all four freedoms must
>be available on both a commercial and non-commercial basis. This
>serves to limit Freedom 2 to gratis distribution only, making the
>software nonfree. The FSF has previously communicated that such a
>thing in a trademark policy makes it nonfree [1]. Perhaps someone
>could host a rebranded verion of Pale Moon that doesn't have this
>problem, much like how GNU IceCat solves the problem for Firefox, but
>Pale Moon itself seems ineligible for being in the Free Software
>Directory.
>
>In addition:
>
>3a seems to contain restrictions on exactly how Pale Moon can be
>distributed (can't be part of AppImage, flatpak, or SNAP). With free
>software, people should be able to package programs for use with
>any kind of package management system.
>
>#4 on the prohibition of "download managers" might be able to be
>interpreted as not allowing other package managers like APT or
>RPM too since they also function as a way to download software.
>
>Finally:
>
>* We reserve the right to withdraw permission for the use of official
>  branding and/or redistribution of officially-branded binaries
>  either as a whole or for specific target environments at any time,
>  with or without stated reason.
>
>This affects someone's ability to exercise Freedom #2 where the
>ability to share sharing exact copies can be terminated at any time
>and for any reason. This seems to go against this part of the Free
>Software Definition that: "In order for these freedoms to be real,
>they must be permanent and irrevocable as long as you do nothing
>wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the
>license, or retroactively add restrictions to its terms, without your
>doing anything wrong to give cause, the software is not free."
>
>If Freedom #2 can be revoked at their will the software should not be
>considered free.
>
>0: https://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml
>1:
>https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2011-08/msg00014.html

-- 
* https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
* Ativista não advogado, nem técnico de informática
* Compre dos vendedores locais
* Use e contribua ao software livre (diferente do gratuito)
* Enviando docs.? Use OpenDocument. Outros tipos: vide endereço anterior
* Use XMPP (federado, pai do WhatsApp)
* E-mails assinados com OpenPGP (anexo "signature.asc")

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature