Re: About Firefox licenses

[al3xu5 / dotcommon]

Il giorno venerdì 15/01/2010 17:52:34 CET
Reed Loden <address@hidden> ha scritto:

[...]
> > the 3-licensed FF source code is free software, but
> > 
> > the binary FF released by Mozilla are not freely redestribuable
> > (including trademark and copyrighted stuff) so they are not free
> > 
> > FF includes some non-free plugins (plugins with a non free software
> > license) like adobe reader and flash
> 
> Wrong, no plug-ins are included in a default Firefox install (besides
> the "default" dummy plugin that doesn't do anything; I think that's
> even been removed lately).

anyway FF suggest their installation 

they raccomend:
https://addons.mozilla.org/it/firefox/browse/type:7
Adobe Reader
Adobe Flash Player
Apple QuickTime
Real Network RealPlayer
Adobe Shockwave
Microsoft Windows Media Player

to me, this is more than enough

> > FF recommend non-free software as plug-ins and addons
> 
> Not sure I care. As much as I absolutely *hate* Flash, it's now pretty
> much a required component for surfing the Web. 

required? by who?
standards? laws? ... uhmo no...
maybe required by profit needs os non free software corporations...

i do not use flash, but i can surf the web as i need

> Gnash just doesn't
> cut it for now... I'd very much love to see Flash killed and Open Web
> things used in its place (such as SVG, canvas, etc.), but I don't see
> that happening anytime soon.

i do not think so... something is happening since html5...
many website are now offering ogg audio and video... and they are
increasing everyday

> > FF suggest using non free formats
> 
> Such as what?

such as those used by some of the non free plugins listed above or used
by a lot of other non free addons they raccommend

> > so... please AVOID USING FF, use GNU/IceCat instead!
> 
> ... and why exactly would anybody in his/her right mind recommend
> that people use some random program that really is just somebody
> else's code, 

the same as FF is:

a great part of FF code is just somebody else's (than Mozilla) code,
thay say (http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/firefox/organic/) "Our most
well-known product, Firefox, is created by an international movement of
thousands, only a small percentage of whom are actual employees."

more, all addons (plugins, extensions etc) code is just somebody else's
(than Mozilla) code

> which adds some more code that hasn't been reviewed
> from anybody who actually knows what's going on, 

tha same happens with all FF addons... so why this shoud be a problem
for IceCat and not for FF? 

if this is a problem you should not raccomend neither FF nor any other
software which uses community producted plugins

> and very likely
> hasn't been run through any of Mozilla's unit tests, 

so you think any fork or customization of ANY corporate-conduct open
project should be avoided for the same reason?

more, GNU IceCat is developed by Guzilla which is a official GNU
project... what do you think is wrong about it? do yoou thnik mozilla
is more reliable or authoritative than gnu?

> plus likely
> wasn't compiled with all appropriate optimizations that Mozilla has
> figured out. 

appropriate optimizations? appropriate respect to what???
standard? laws? marketing appeal? 

to me GNU IceCat has appropriate optimizations in terms of freedom
which FF (and IceWeasel) do not have

do you think all the stuff from mozilla is good just because come
from the god-mozilla-google? 

> Please explain that to me. 

i reccomend it for all the reasons above... 
it seems so simple to me...

but, sorry, it is hard to me to understand YOUR reasons...

regards
al3xu5 / dotcommon

--
Support free software! Join FSF: http://www.fsf.org/jf?referrer=7535
______________________________________________________________________
Public GPG/PGP key block
ID:           1024D/11C70137
Fingerprint:  60F1 B550 3A95 7901 F410  D484 82E7 5377 11C7 0137
Key download: http://bitfreedom.noblogs.org/gallery/5721/dotcommon.asc
[ Please, do not send my key to any keyserver! ]

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature