4 ms·

Firefox is already non-free software. The Mozilla branding is the main reason why - those parts are licensed under non-free licenses.

pslam 13y ago
Firefox is non-free due to trademark protection, but that's VASTLY different to being non-free due to being a paid download, or being closed source, or patent licensing, or restrictive licensing terms, and so on. It's almost irrelevant to the parent poster's comment to claim that.
- quadrangle 13y ago
  Firefox is NOT non-free, period. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0
  - pslam 13y ago
    No, there are disputes over this, and it's exactly why there is Iceweasel in Debian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_Debian_project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_re... It's not really a big deal, but the trademark restriction does mean you can't just redistribute Firefox as-is. Whether you count that as non-free is subjective.
    - quadrangle 13y ago
      I agree there's some subjectivity but "you can't just redistribute Firefox as-is" is NOT subjective. That is flat out wrong. You can redistribute Firefox as-is. What you can't do is redistribute modified Firefox and keep the name.
quadrangle 13y ago
No, Firefox allows you to rebrand modifications and so is Free Software. If it enforced that you keep the branding, that would be non-free. Here it is right in the list of APPROVED Free Software licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0
isaacaggrey 13y ago
You're talking semantics. Sure, the branding is non-free (you can't distribute the same version obviously), but your four freedoms aren't diminished in any way [1]. [1]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

pslam 13y ago

Firefox is non-free due to trademark protection, but that's VASTLY different to being non-free due to being a paid download, or being closed source, or patent licensing, or restrictive licensing terms, and so on. It's almost irrelevant to the parent poster's comment to claim that.

quadrangle 13y ago
Firefox is NOT non-free, period. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0
- pslam 13y ago
  No, there are disputes over this, and it's exactly why there is Iceweasel in Debian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_Debian_project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_re... It's not really a big deal, but the trademark restriction does mean you can't just redistribute Firefox as-is. Whether you count that as non-free is subjective.
  - quadrangle 13y ago
    I agree there's some subjectivity but "you can't just redistribute Firefox as-is" is NOT subjective. That is flat out wrong. You can redistribute Firefox as-is. What you can't do is redistribute modified Firefox and keep the name.

quadrangle 13y ago

No, Firefox allows you to rebrand modifications and so is Free Software. If it enforced that you keep the branding, that would be non-free. Here it is right in the list of APPROVED Free Software licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0

isaacaggrey 13y ago

You're talking semantics. Sure, the branding is non-free (you can't distribute the same version obviously), but your four freedoms aren't diminished in any way [1]. [1]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html