Re: Pale Moon

[Craig Topham]

On 12/2/22 13:54, 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
>
> Thank you jxself, this is insightful and worth exploring. As I read the 
> redistribution license it seems to be about protecting their trademarks 
> and not prohibiting Freedom #2 or prohibiting the right to sell the 
> software _IF_ the trademarked branding is not included.
>
> ["This license covers redistribution of officially supplied binaries and 
> some policies regarding binaries built from source with official 
> branding,"][0]
>
> [0]: https://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml
>
> The officially supplied binaries would contain the trademarked branding 
> as would the binaries built from source with official branding.
>
> I haven't compiled from source, but it seems to be [available][1]. If 
> one downloads that source, removes the trademarked branding, then there 
> is no limitation with what one can do with that source, it is free.
>
> [1]: https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/Pale-Moon
>
> AFAIK there is no problem with a group protecting their trademarks while 
> distributing free software. It can be done incorrectly where freedoms 
> are affected, but I don't think it is the case here with Pale Moon.
>
> I am open to discussion and await your reply. For the time being, David 
> Hedlund set the Pale Moon entry to under review until we can sort this out.
>
> ~Craig

jxself, I may have been mistaken. According to a [2011 thread][0] with 
Brett Smith, it seems we have a position on the matter, and that it 
seems Pale Moon (as is) goes to far. However, I would like to verify 
that this is still our stance with a more recent example.

[0]: 
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2011-08/msg00014.html

~Craig
>

--
All the best,

Craig Topham
Copyright & Licensing Associate
Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: +1-617-542-5942
Fax: +1-617-542-2652
Email: craigt@fsf.org
GPG key: 36C9 950D 2F68 254E D89C 7C03 F9C1 3A10 581A B853