[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?
From: |
Christopher Lemmer Webber |
Subject: |
Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe? |
Date: |
Mon, 25 May 2020 16:17:05 -0400 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.3 |
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 <address@hidden> 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.
>>
- Vanilla Firefox recipe?, Christopher Lemmer Webber, 2020/05/11
- Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?, Guillaume Le Vaillant, 2020/05/11
- Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?, Efraim Flashner, 2020/05/12
- Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?, Adonay Felipe Nogueira, 2020/05/24
- Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?,
Christopher Lemmer Webber <=
- Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?, Ludovic Courtès, 2020/05/26
- Re: Why Mozilla Firefox is nonfree? (was: Vanilla Firefox recipe?), Dmitry Alexandrov, 2020/05/27
- Re: Why Mozilla Firefox is nonfree? (was: Vanilla Firefox recipe?), Adonay Felipe Nogueira, 2020/05/27
- X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23, Dmitry Alexandrov, 2020/05/28
- Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2020/05/27
- Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2020/05/25