Hi, I'd like to request that you consider rewriting the first paragraph on the GNUzilla/IceCat front page here:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/ Please note I am in no way affiliated with Mozilla Foundation/Corporation, I'm just a Firefox fan and a volunteer nightly tester. Also, please don't take this as an attack on your project, I don't necessarily approve of it but I completely support your right to create it. > "Gnuzilla is the GNU version of the Mozilla suite, and GNU IceCat is the > GNU version of the Firefox browser. Its main advantage is an ethical one: > it is entirely free software." How is Firefox not entirely free software? If it's the trademark policy that you object to then doesn't that render nearly every major open source software project as non-free, e.g. Ubuntu? > "While the principal source code from the Mozilla project is free > software, the distribution contains various problematic files," Is this referring to the closed source crash reporter tool that was removed in Firefox 3.0? As far as I can see none of the files listed in remove.nonfree are actually distributed in a Linux Firefox build with the exception of the branding files. If it's those files you object to then it seems to me you should specifically say that, otherwise people could get the wrong impression about these "problematic files". > "the EULA they require for use of their binaries is troublesome," The EULA was removed in Firefox 3.0.5. > "and they distribute and recommend non-free software as plug-ins." Fair enough (though this line is confusing because it's not clear whether it refers to plug-ins or extensions or both). Thanks and I hope you can take this request in the spirit it was intended, I'm aware it could be read as an attack against your project which is certainly not my intention. -- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
