I wouldn't call ABP malicious. Rather, it comes with malicious defaults, but a benign configuration is one check-box away. I am willing to concur with Sam Geeraerts: it's not a big deal if it stays.
On 10/22/2012 12:00 PM, Loic J. Duros wrote: > Hi: > > As mentioned before, the primary criterion is software freedom. Of course, we > also care about privacy, and in fact it is one of my main focuses for the next > release on IceCat. > > I think that as long as the extension provides a checkbox to stop allowing > these > whitelisted ads, the user still gets a choice, and because it is released > under > the MPL2.0, users can also just fork the addon and make their own, without > this > particular functionality or any other. > > Of course we can list the two variants along with the original. As I stated > earlier, I'm building a new interface for the addon list. Unfortunately, the > GNU > webmasters and sysadmins don't want to set up an MVC on the main server, and > so > I'm building a dynamic addon page entirely in (free) JavaScript for this > purpose. In the backend (which I'm afraid will have to run from another > server, > such as my own) it will automatically generate lists of free addons, and > perform > a rudimentary file check for license notices, and provide updated data. I > guess > we could blacklist those free addons that are perceived as malicious. I'm not > sure it's the case for ABP since I don't use it, but I'll take a closer look > at it. > > Thanks, > > > > On 10/21/2012 11:26 AM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote: >> What you are saying makes sense, and I definitely think this >> is a borderline case. Still, I think APB is distributed with >> a malicious feature turned on by default. There are forks which >> have the malicious feature removed, such as Adblock Lite and >> Trueblock Plus. At the very least, they should be listed >> alongside ABP. But then why have ABP at all? It is strictly >> inferior to its forks, so there is now a redundancy issue. >> >> Than being said, your explanation made me reconsider my position >> and I won't advocate removal anymore. >> >> On 10/21/2012 05:55 AM, Sam Geeraerts wrote: >>> Ivan Zaigralin wrote: >>>> Adblock Lite is MPL. It has the Adblock Plus' current feature set >>>> with the old (pre-2) interface. The main difference is the absence >>>> of Allow Some Ads option, which is enabled by default in Adblock >>>> Plus. In an ironic twist of fate, Palant sold out to advertisers :) >>>> While the code of ABP is still free, IMHO, it should be removed >>>> because its default settings are designed to abuse the user, and >>>> replacements are available. >>> The criterion for inclusion in the Gnuzilla list is software freedom. If >>> extensions are barred for other reasons, then the purpose of the list >>> becomes >>> less clear. There are also extensions in the list that facilitate the use of >>> Google and other websites/services that have raised privacy concerns. With >>> the >>> current policy they could only be excluded if you'd argue that they >>> encourage >>> the use of websites that require running non-free Javascript. >>> >>> That being said, the Gnuzilla project does pay attention to user privacy. >>> Loic >>> could choose to add that as a second criterion for the list (with the >>> aforementioned risk). Another option is to add warnings to the list. That >>> still >>> requires that every extension be checked for privacy issues, because it >>> shouldn't be that no privacy warning could also mean that it hasn't been >>> checked. So it would take more work to get (certain types of) extensions on >>> the >>> list, making people less inclined to submit them. And like with SaaS, it's >>> not >>> always clear cut whether something crossed the line. I'm not opposed to the >>> idea >>> per se, though. :) >>> >>> Anyway, I'm not sure ABP's default settings are even a privacy issue. And >>> if I >>> recall correctly, it does explicitly give users the choice to disable the >>> whitelist when it's installed. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> http://gnuzilla.gnu.org > > > > -- > http://gnuzilla.gnu.org >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
