[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IceCat page change request

From: Giuseppe Scrivano
Subject: Re: IceCat page change request
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:56:56 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.95 (gnu/linux)

FP <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi, I'd like to request that you consider rewriting the first
> paragraph on the GNUzilla/IceCat front page here:
> http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
> Please note I am in no way affiliated with Mozilla
> Foundation/Corporation, I'm just a Firefox fan and a volunteer nightly
> tester. Also, please don't take this as an attack on your project, I
> don't necessarily approve of it but I completely support your right to
> create it.

and I support your right to criticize it :)

>> "Gnuzilla is the GNU version of the Mozilla suite, and GNU IceCat is the
>> GNU version of the Firefox browser. Its main advantage is an ethical one:
>> it is entirely free software."
> How is Firefox not entirely free software?
> If it's the trademark policy that you object to then doesn't that
> render nearly every major open source software project as non-free,
> e.g. Ubuntu?

We don't care at all about trademark, it doesn't do any difference.  The
central point is that Mozilla supports non-free plugins and non-free
addons and if you use their online services to retrieve them, you can
see how they are well embedded into the browser.  It is enough to, at
least for us, to don't consider it completely free.
The FSF and the GNU project don't accept any compromise on freedom, even
if the Macromedia Flash player is technically superior to free
alternatives, we support the Gnash player, with the hope it will improve
technically for us it is already better: it is free.
There are not other reasons for GNU IceCat to exists, the day Firefox
will support completely the free software then there is no reason to
offer this alternative.

>> "While the principal source code from the Mozilla project is free
>> software, the distribution contains various problematic files,"
> Is this referring to the closed source crash reporter tool that was
> removed in Firefox 3.0? As far as I can see none of the files listed
> in remove.nonfree are actually distributed in a Linux Firefox build
> with the exception of the branding files. If it's those files you
> object to then it seems to me you should specifically say that,
> otherwise people could get the wrong impression about these
> "problematic files".
>> "the EULA they require for use of their binaries is troublesome,"
> The EULA was removed in Firefox 3.0.5.

You are right, they must be removed from the page.

>> "and they distribute and recommend non-free software as plug-ins."
> Fair enough (though this line is confusing because it's not clear
> whether it refers to plug-ins or extensions or both).

Both, I'll make it clearer.

> Thanks and I hope you can take this request in the spirit it was
> intended, I'm aware it could be read as an attack against your project
> which is certainly not my intention.

Did I take in the right spirit? :)  I hope you'll give IceCat a try.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]