[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] Free Software Add-on for IceCat

From: Ivan Zaigralin
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] Free Software Add-on for IceCat
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:26:49 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1

What you are saying makes sense, and I definitely think this
is a borderline case. Still, I think APB is distributed with
a malicious feature turned on by default. There are forks which
have the malicious feature removed, such as Adblock Lite and
Trueblock Plus. At the very least, they should be listed
alongside ABP. But then why have ABP at all? It is strictly
inferior to its forks, so there is now a redundancy issue.

Than being said, your explanation made me reconsider my position
and I won't advocate removal anymore.

On 10/21/2012 05:55 AM, Sam Geeraerts wrote:
> Ivan Zaigralin wrote:
>> Adblock Lite is MPL. It has the Adblock Plus' current feature set
>> with the old (pre-2) interface. The main difference is the absence
>> of Allow Some Ads option, which is enabled by default in Adblock
>> Plus. In an ironic twist of fate, Palant sold out to advertisers :)
>> While the code of ABP is still free, IMHO, it should be removed
>> because its default settings are designed to abuse the user, and
>> replacements are available.
> The criterion for inclusion in the Gnuzilla list is software freedom. If
> extensions are barred for other reasons, then the purpose of the list becomes
> less clear. There are also extensions in the list that facilitate the use of
> Google and other websites/services that have raised privacy concerns. With the
> current policy they could only be excluded if you'd argue that they encourage
> the use of websites that require running non-free Javascript.
> That being said, the Gnuzilla project does pay attention to user privacy. Loic
> could choose to add that as a second criterion for the list (with the
> aforementioned risk). Another option is to add warnings to the list. That 
> still
> requires that every extension be checked for privacy issues, because it
> shouldn't be that no privacy warning could also mean that it hasn't been
> checked. So it would take more work to get (certain types of) extensions on 
> the
> list, making people less inclined to submit them. And like with SaaS, it's not
> always clear cut whether something crossed the line. I'm not opposed to the 
> idea
> per se, though. :)
> Anyway, I'm not sure ABP's default settings are even a privacy issue. And if I
> recall correctly, it does explicitly give users the choice to disable the
> whitelist when it's installed.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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