[Top][All Lists]

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

X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23

From: Dmitry Alexandrov
Subject: X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 08:11:05 +0300
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Dear listmaster,

is there any reason to have this content-filter enabled there?  Besides doing a 
good job of breaking body signatures (DKIM and GPG, if any), it also seems to 
produce a mess like this from time to time:

--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: Why Mozilla Firefox is nonfree? (was: Vanilla Firefox recipe?) Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 14:31:31 -0300 (GMT-03:00)
As far as I know not even Chromium is free/libre, see . Also I would recommend all to ask the 
FSF about the freedom issues with Firefox. -- * Ativista do software livre * * Membro dos grupos avaliadores de * 
Software (Free Software Directory) * Distribuições de sistemas (FreedSoftware) 
* Sites (Free JavaScript Action Team) * Não sou advogado e não fomento os não 
livres * Sempre veja o spam/lixo eletrônico do teu e-mail * Ou coloque todos os 
recebidos na caixa de entrada * Sempre assino e-mails com OpenPGP * Chave 
pública: vide endereço anterior * Qualquer outro pode ser fraude * Se não tens 
OpenPGP, ignore o anexo "signature.asc" * Ao enviar anexos * Docs., planilhas e 
apresentações: use OpenDocument * Outros tipos: vide endereço anterior * Use 
protocolos de comunicação federadas * Vide endereço anterior * Mensagens 
secretas somente via * XMPP com OMEMO * E-mail criptografado e assinado com 
OpenPGP Wed May 27 02:16:47 GMT-03:00 2020 Dmitry Alexandrov <>: 
Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote: > 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? Nope. Firefox, as 
distributed by Mozilla, is simply not a free software. Just reread the 
agreement with Mozilla [0] you are supposed to abide. You are _not_ free even 
to redistribute _exact_ copies of it, let aside distributing modified ones: | 
You may distribute unaltered copies of Mozilla Firefox and other Mozilla 
software from without express permission from Mozilla as long as 
you comply with the following rules: | | — You may not charge for the software. 
That means: | · Distribution may not be subject to any fee. | · Distribution 
may not be tied to purchasing a product or service. There are many other points 
there, that alone enough to render it nonfree. My favourite one: | — When 
distributing you must distribute the most recent version of Firefox and other 
Mozilla software. [0] > Thus 
I think this isn't exactly correct framing, since firefox itself isn't nonfree? 
As you see, it is. You could build something very similar to Firefox from 
sources, of course, but it would not be Mozilla Firefox. No much difference 
from Google Chrome in that regard. But there is one difference, that is to 
credit of Google and that I would not underestimate — the free counterpart of 
their browser has a canonical name — Chromium. While Mozillaʼs browser is 
anonymous and, unless are fine with adverting nonfree software, cannot be 
referred in any concise way; hence the whole zoo of rebrands: Icecat, 
Iceweasel, Fennec (F-Droid), Abrowser (Trisquel)...

--- End Message ---

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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