On 2022-12-01 18:52, Craig Topham wrote:
On
11/29/22 15:36, Jason Self wrote:
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
Thanks for bring this up. I will be able to take a closer look
tomorrow during the FSD meeting.
~Craig
I just made https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Pale_Moon unavailable
by adding the standard template for trademarks:
{{Project antifeature
|Antifeature=Trademark
|title=[[Free Software Directory:Free software
evaluation#Trademark|Unapproved by the FSF: Trademark]]
|icon=<span style="font-size:
250%;">⚠</span>
|message=https://www.palemoon.org/branding.shtml
}}
See
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:Free_software_evaluation#Trademark
for more trademarked software.
|