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

[Narcis Garcia]

Al3xu5,

If I sell G.Icecat, I'm converting this project to non-free software?
And if I sell Emacs to someone, and he/she copies it to a friend, which
copy is free software and which one is not?

I want to note that the license doesn't set the price.

OpenOffice was made with paid developers and, although people downloaded
it with no direct payment, that was a paid project under free software
license.


Al 11/05/13 20:28, En/na al3xu5 / dotcommon ha escrit:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> --
> http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
>