Re: Tor Browser

[Mark H Weaver]

Alex Vong <address@hidden> writes:

> ng0 <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Alex Vong <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Finally, I agree that icecat could switch to tor browser as its upstream.
>>
>> Maybe you want to help me out with writing the email / post to
>> torproject:
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-08/msg00326.html
>>
>> On second note, maybe this is message should be addressed to both
>> torproject and icecat developer(s). What do you think? I have no fixed
>> plan in mind for this.
>>
> Hmm, maybe I will give my (rough) idea here. In my opinion, icecat has 2
> important features, librejs (gpl3+) and the lack of non-free addons
> suggestion.

We would also need to remove Firefox support for DRM (e.g. EME), avoid
steering users to non-free media codecs, and maybe some other things to
meet the requirements of the GNU FSDG.

I suspect that these changes are substantial enough that we'll need to
change the branding, and avoid using the Firefox trademark, but I'm not
sure.

> For librejs, TBB already have noscripts, although they serve different
> purposes (librejs intends to block non-free js only), I doubt devs would
> want to include 2 js blocker addons. But I think html5 everyhere will be
> a good addon for TBB since most html5 player requires js. Currently,
> enabling noscript breaks most video-playing sites.
>
> For the lack of non-free addons suggestion, TBB recommends not to
> install addon, but the addon page is still there, which suggest non-free
> addons. I don't really know what should we do here.

The IceCat project maintains a page of free addons.  I guess we should
use that.

I agree that the best outcome would be for IceCat to switch to Tor
Browser as its upstream, or at least to borrow heavily from their patch
set.

     Thanks,
       Mark