Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?
Chris, Christopher Lemmer Webber 写道： Am I missing something? What makes Firefox itself nonfree (which I think is not quite the same thing as not compliant with the FSDG)? Nothing. There seems to be a misunderstanding that Mozilla's trademark policy makes the Firefox source code less or non-free, which isn't true. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Mozilla; there's no need to change the definition of free software or the FSDG to serve that agenda. I think you and Carlo have summarised it well: it's free software (yay!) but needs to be made FSDG-compliant (making doubly sure we rip out malware hooks like ‘EME’) to ship with Guix under a different name to protect Mozilla's brand. I hope we call it Iceweasel like Debian does to avoid confusion, but it will be as vanilla as the FSDG allows. Kind regards, T G-R signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?
Hello! Adonay is right that the project’s channels are not the place to discuss third-party channels and distribution methods, especially channels and tools that provide non-FSDG-compliant software. As for Firefox, it pops up every now and then, but there seems to be a lasting misunderstanding. Firefox, as is, will not go into Guix because it does not comply with several items of the FSDG, which the project is committed to following (for example, by linking to Mozilla’s add-on catalog, which contains non-free software.) However, a version of Firefox stripped from the bits that make it non-FSDG-compliant would be welcome. This is essentially what IceCat is about, but IceCat is based on an LTS version (I think that’s what you meant by “old”) and it enables various privacy-enhancing plugins by default. I think there were a few attempts to do that in the past, but they were not completed, so we’re having this discussion again. :-) It might be that the “clean up” code we have for IceCat would work with few modifications on the latest Firefox. I hope this clarifies the situation! Until then, happy web browsing. :-) Ludo’.
Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?
Adonay, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via 写道： I came late to this issue, but I think this should have been posted on development mailing list. It was not related to the development of Guix or the GNU system, so no. guix-devel is not an ‘FSDG-lite’ place to promote non-free software. Kind regards, T G-R signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?
I'm not sure it's really accurate to categorize asking for a vanilla copy of firefox, which might not comply with the FSDG, as nonfree software. The primary issue with Firefox that makes it qualify as "nonfree" is that the add-ons tool brings you to something that might guide a user towards nonfree software right? Thus I think this isn't exactly correct framing, since firefox itself isn't nonfree? There is a difference if I, as a user, install Firefox as free software, and I am aware of the issue with the default extensions kit, and end up installing no nonfree software on my computer, right? Am I missing something? What makes Firefox itself nonfree (which I think is not quite the same thing as not compliant with the FSDG)? Adonay Felipe Nogueira via writes: > I came late to this issue, but I think this should have been posted on > development mailing list. It's not good if we use the general help list > to foster non-free software like Firefox or those which are third-party > package managers with no default repository explicitly commited to > following the GNU FSDG. > > Furthermore, to ease the sides of both the thread starter and the > community, I'm taking a simplification in that I'm considering the use > of such non-free software for purpose of developing or improving a free > replacement. That means I'm not discussing the merit of whether the > question should or shouldn't have been answered the way it was. > > One must be remind though, that the GNU FSDG isn't only about the > packages distributed (software, documentation, text fonts, etc), but > also about the community, and this is one of the things that keep Debian > out of the list of free system distributions. > > Em 12/05/2020 16:23, Efraim Flashner escreveu: >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:31:02PM +0200, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote: >>> >>> Christopher Lemmer Webber skribis: >>> Anyone have a package definition (or channel) for a recent vanilla firefox? I understand the decision to prefer distributing Icecat instead in Guix proper, but I need a more recent version of things... I suspect others sometimes do too. I have a feeling at least someone in the community has written such a definition... would you mind sharing? Thanks! - Chris >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> There is a channel at >>> https://forge.monarch-pass.net/warrah/warrah-nonfsdg with a package >>> definition for Firefox 74.0.1. I haven't tested it though. >> >> Other options include using the now official flatpak copy of firefox. If >> you do go that route make sure to use the '--user' flag for flatpak so >> it doesn't segfault while trying to write to /var/lib/flatpak. >>
Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?
I came late to this issue, but I think this should have been posted on development mailing list. It's not good if we use the general help list to foster non-free software like Firefox or those which are third-party package managers with no default repository explicitly commited to following the GNU FSDG. Furthermore, to ease the sides of both the thread starter and the community, I'm taking a simplification in that I'm considering the use of such non-free software for purpose of developing or improving a free replacement. That means I'm not discussing the merit of whether the question should or shouldn't have been answered the way it was. One must be remind though, that the GNU FSDG isn't only about the packages distributed (software, documentation, text fonts, etc), but also about the community, and this is one of the things that keep Debian out of the list of free system distributions. Em 12/05/2020 16:23, Efraim Flashner escreveu: > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:31:02PM +0200, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote: >> >> Christopher Lemmer Webber skribis: >> >>> Anyone have a package definition (or channel) for a recent vanilla >>> firefox? >>> >>> I understand the decision to prefer distributing Icecat instead in Guix >>> proper, but I need a more recent version of things... I suspect others >>> sometimes do too. I have a feeling at least someone in the community >>> has written such a definition... would you mind sharing? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> - Chris >> >> Hi, >> >> There is a channel at >> https://forge.monarch-pass.net/warrah/warrah-nonfsdg with a package >> definition for Firefox 74.0.1. I haven't tested it though. > > Other options include using the now official flatpak copy of firefox. If > you do go that route make sure to use the '--user' flag for flatpak so > it doesn't segfault while trying to write to /var/lib/flatpak. > -- * Ativista do software livre * https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno * Membro dos grupos avaliadores de * Software (Free Software Directory) * Distribuições de sistemas (FreedSoftware) * Sites (Free JavaScript Action Team) * Não sou advogado e não fomento os não livres * Sempre veja o spam/lixo eletrônico do teu e-mail * Ou coloque todos os recebidos na caixa de entrada * Sempre assino e-mails com OpenPGP * Chave pública: vide endereço anterior * Qualquer outro pode ser fraude * Se não tens OpenPGP, ignore o anexo "signature.asc" * Ao enviar anexos * Docs., planilhas e apresentações: use OpenDocument * Outros tipos: vide endereço anterior * Use protocolos de comunicação federadas * Vide endereço anterior * Mensagens secretas somente via * XMPP com OMEMO * E-mail criptografado e assinado com OpenPGP signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:31:02PM +0200, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote: > > Christopher Lemmer Webber skribis: > > > Anyone have a package definition (or channel) for a recent vanilla > > firefox? > > > > I understand the decision to prefer distributing Icecat instead in Guix > > proper, but I need a more recent version of things... I suspect others > > sometimes do too. I have a feeling at least someone in the community > > has written such a definition... would you mind sharing? > > > > Thanks! > > - Chris > > Hi, > > There is a channel at > https://forge.monarch-pass.net/warrah/warrah-nonfsdg with a package > definition for Firefox 74.0.1. I haven't tested it though. Other options include using the now official flatpak copy of firefox. If you do go that route make sure to use the '--user' flag for flatpak so it doesn't segfault while trying to write to /var/lib/flatpak. -- Efraim Flashner אפרים פלשנר GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?
Christopher Lemmer Webber skribis: > Anyone have a package definition (or channel) for a recent vanilla > firefox? > > I understand the decision to prefer distributing Icecat instead in Guix > proper, but I need a more recent version of things... I suspect others > sometimes do too. I have a feeling at least someone in the community > has written such a definition... would you mind sharing? > > Thanks! > - Chris Hi, There is a channel at https://forge.monarch-pass.net/warrah/warrah-nonfsdg with a package definition for Firefox 74.0.1. I haven't tested it though. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
