This is going to be the Apple app store all over again only now it will potentially affect so many more people. How long until we see a story about something being rejected for political reasons?
-- Sent from my GNU/Linux-Libre box. Run free. http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros [email protected] On Sat, Feb 14, 2015, at 04:00, [email protected] wrote: > Send Free-software-melb mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Free-software-melb digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Firefox addons (Adrian Colomitchi) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 12:25:48 +1100 > From: Adrian Colomitchi <[email protected]> > To: Melbourne Free Software Interest Group > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [free-software-melb] Firefox addons > Message-ID: > <CAG-MQo2RgRZGrgCtcSqXBoks7aKznmXV-AS56LS2A11f4k1=k...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > As it stands, Mozilla is going to hurt add-on developers > Imagine developing an add-on for in-house purposes of your org, but can't > install it without being signed by Mozilla. > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Adam Bolte <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On 12/02/15 13:29, Brian May wrote: > > > See > > > > > https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/02/10/extension-signing-safer-experience/ > > > > > > The following threads on the mailing list appear to be relevant (I > > haven't > > > read them yet): > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.addons.user-experience/qIgLq28aTdI > > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.addons.user-experience/slaKs943n4c > > > > Thanks. So Mozilla is to become a central signing authority for add-ons, > > and all add-ons must be signed before they will be installable on > > upcoming Firefox releases. Colour me impressed. > > > > I'm all for having add-ons signed. I take that pretty seriously > > actually, and I didn't try Arch for years because they didn't support > > package signing (which they have apparently since sorted). But there are > > some big differences between what Mozilla is doing, and what other free > > software projects do that distribute packages (such as Debian and > > F-Droid, for example). > > > > The main problem is that Firefox is mandating all packages be signed by > > Mozilla regardless of where and how the packages are distributed. I can > > set up my own F-Droid or Apt repository just fine (and I have actually > > done the later for apps installed and developed internally to my > > workplace) - but *I* get to sign them. I don't need to submit them to > > Debian first. > > > > As it stands, Mozilla is going to hurt add-on developers - making it > > more difficult to test releases, much harder to find beta-testers, > > introducing more manual steps, and an unnecessary delay in being able to > > release. They are going to hurt end users - they will no longer have > > access to old unmaintained add-ons unless they wish to learn how to fork > > and submit them (which is unlikely many will do). Lastly, it's going to > > hurt Mozilla, as IMO it further tarnishes their reputation (although > > they already lost most of it when they chose to support EME extensions > > IMO). > > > > There are other questions that have arisen, such as what will happen to > > add-ons that basically enable side-loading scripts such GreaseMonkey and > > dotjs, or add-ons that do things illegal in the US (eg. due to DMCA > > restrictions) but are legal outside? What about environments that do not > > allow private add-ons to be hosted on remote servers for fear of court > > orders, the NSA, or a server compromise? The responses to such questions > > have so far not been encouraging. > > > > I expect most GNU/Linux distributions which package rebadged versions of > > Firefox and popular add-ons will be disabling this functionality out of > > necessity anyway, but I still can't help but feel disappointed. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Free-software-melb mailing list > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb > > > > > > Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Free-software-melb mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb > > Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/ > > ------------------------------ > > End of Free-software-melb Digest, Vol 52, Issue 2 > ************************************************* _______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list [email protected] http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
