In some jurisdictions, they cannot be "public domain", unless their authors
died at least 70 years ago, which I very much doubt. They are probably
distributed under a so-called "permissive license" (aka "lax license", aka
"pushover license"), which lets anyone do anything they want with the
This is sheer nonsense and yet another attempt to renew someone's favorite
discussion about 4 freedoms and all the rest of it.
Everybody can observe that you are, once again, the one bringing back the
four freedoms.
The GitHub repo I opened will use "The Unlicense" which means no copyright
Without a © it is basically public domain, and cannot be subjected to a
license.
If only that could be the case! Unfortunately, under the Berne convention
(signed by almost all the countries in the world), the copyright is
automatic. The "classical" copyright I mean. Where you are
Here is a small AWK program that processes the output of the previous script:
#!/usr/bin/awk -f
BEGIN { FS = "\t" }
{
val = ""
for (i = 2; i = NF) {
print "user_pref(\"" $1 "\", " val ");"
}
}
It does the same as https://github.com/jm42/compare-user.js, i.e., "adds a
I removed the tabs right before the sed call. The end of the lines were not
removed when there was a comment afterwards: the last sed substitution is for
that. Finally I was assuming the keys would be defined at most once per file
but "ghacks" makes jokes with several definitions of a same
Here is a Shell script that creates a table from as many user.js and prefs.js
file as you want (the only arguments of the script):
#!/bin/sh
if [ -z "$1" ]
then
printf "Usage: $0 prefs1.js ...
"
exit
fi
printf '# key'
TMP=`mktemp -dt all_prefs.XX`
trap "rm -r $TMP 2>/dev/null" 0
If you have any better idea let me know.
If you want scripts to handle the table, having tab-separated values (you may
want to use commas in the cells) looks like a good idea. What scripts are
you considering? I can potentially help with Shell or AWK scripts.
For visualization, a script
This is nonsense.
There is sense: the telemetry component of Firefox sends anonimized data that
help Firefox's development, safe search warns about phishing and malware,
etc.
I am honestly tired of reading preaching about the 4 divine commandments
which nobody cares to exercise in
Where is the community who has the 'freedoms' to modify things when such
critical issue is found?
There are many Firefox forks, what would be impossible without freedom 3. If
none fixes what you call "critical issues", it is because their communities
do not see those as critical issues.
Trisquel 7 now has Abrowser 58, based on the same version of Firefox,
released two days ago.
I think the effort should be concentrated on top management of Mozilla (how?
I don't know).
As a developer yold heyjoe in his first bug report:
Bugzilla is not the place to discuss these topics; the governance mailing
list might be the right place for it:
sloccount "only" finds 9.1 million lines of code in
https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/57.0.4/source/firefox-57.0.4.source.tar.xz
:
$ sloccount firefox/
(...)
SLOCDirectory SLOC-by-Language (Sorted)
1455904 media
I discuss _privacy_ issues.
In the excerpt I quoted,
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Libre_Browsers_Libre_Formats#Browsers_that_might_seem_free.2C_but_are_not
is not about privacy. At all. Just a precision in my post: not all Firefox
derivatives do not suffer from the freedom issues that
Chromium seems just as non-free as Firefox considering the link shared by
another poster
(https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Libre_Browsers_Libre_Formats#Browsers_that_might_seem_free.2C_but_are_not)
yet for some reason people mention it as free, prefer it, fork it and make
browsers using the
I don't know if you understand what I am saying.
I do not. Since you are redefining words, it is not surprising. The
definition of freedom you list match the one I gave you. They do not say
"freedom means no limitation" (like you wrote). That is fortunate because
your definition is
Like I wrote to heyjoe:
Distributing the lists is not the hard part. Creating them is. It involves
crawling the Web and processing every page (Google does so in parallel
virtual machines):
https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/hotbots07/tech/full_papers/provos/provos.pdf
You cannot just
In any case, technically it is possible to get information without loosing
privacy. Example: you turn on the radio and you listen to music.
For Safe Browsing that would mean continuously broadcasting to to all online
systems hundreds of thousands of unsafe URLs:
The problem with this statement is that you know (or rather can check) only
what happens on the sending side.
That is correct. But there is no magic: if you send little information, then
little information is received on the other side. If you add noise, the
receiver can exploit it even
Yeah, as I said a truly libre and privacy friendly browser would not come
with a ton of antiprivacy nonsense and a user should not have to do such a
hard work to 'clean it up'.
Taking a look at outgoing connections is not enough to deem how
privacy-respectful a feature is. And that
There are two claims in there, as freedom (in the software sense) and privacy
are to important but separate issues. I agree that Firefox does not
adequately respect privacy, but it is free software which is why it is
possible to create Firefox derivatives that improve the software with
Indeed. And using the same source, here is the free software status of
Chromium (the original question):
Chromium might or might not be free. During the last review, the copyright or
license of some code was unclear. It also has a similiar problem to Iceweasel
and Firefox in which it links
21 matches
Mail list logo
