Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] [gnu.org #829168] GNUzilla and IceCat for Windows?

[al3xu5 / dotcommon]

Il giorno venerdì 10/05/2013 12:46:43 CEST
Ivan Zaigralin <address@hidden> ha scritto:

> Brett Smith is not the final word on whether or not Firefox is
> free software. Any Joe Shmoe can build Firefox without
> branding by using an upstream switch. It's a very minor hurdle,
> and no, it's not at all clear that it makes the software non-free.
> 
> The main issue with Firefox is its reckless attitude towards
> default settings, plugin licenses, and javascript licenses.
> None of these things make it non-free software, but they all
> directly suggest non-free software to users. To shield oneself
> from the non-free code on the Web is the only valid reason to
> run GNU Icecat over unbranded vanilla Firefox.
> 
> The point is, if your problem with Firefox is non-freedom of the
> program, then then you should simply build it without branding.
> And if you actually want Icecat's features, then you need to stop
> and think, because the spyware known as Windows renders them
> completely pointless.
> 
> On 05/10/2013 11:38 AM, Jason Self wrote:
> > Narcis Garcia said:
> >> You can use M.Firefox in MS/Windows, and you will enjoy the same
> > advantages.
> > 
> > Except for that fact that Mozilla Firefox is not free software.
> > 
> > What makes it non-free, you ask? I refer you back to the four basic
> > freedoms.
> > For a program to be free you must be able to use all four freedoms on a
> > commercial of non-commercial basis [0]. That's an important part:
> > Commercial
> > and non-commercial use must be treated entirely equally.
> > 
> > Mozilla does not allow freedom #2 on a commercial basis, rendering
> > Mozilla-branded copies non-free [1]. Recommending that someone use a
> > non-free
> > program is probably not a good idea.
> > 
> > [0] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> > [1]
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2011-08/msg00014.html
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > http://gnuzilla.gnu.org

Just to say that in my opinion if a program respects all the four
"freedoms" (would be better to say "rights") BUT could be used in a commercial
way, then it is NOT free software: indeed, all the people without money to pay
for it (which more often is the most people in the world) is NOT able to use
any of the four "rights"... 

Allowing commercial uses is a severe freedom "bug" (I call it the "commercial
use" issue) in the GPLs!

As Ivan well said, "the main issue with Firefox is its reckless attitude
towards default settings, plugin licenses, and javascript licenses" and - a lot
more than the branding issue with the "freedom" #2 (the "commercial use" issue)
- all these issues are the main reasons for which Firefox is NOT free, althought
(Ivan again) "None of these things make it non-free software"!

Regards
A

-- 
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/files/2010/08/dotcommon.asc
[ Please, DO NOT send my key to any keyserver! ]

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature