4 ms·

The FSF doesn't fight for open source. They're not the "open source foundation". That's someone else. Proprietary software is obviously not a requirement to ma

by jordigh 13y ago

The FSF doesn't fight for open source. They're not the "open source foundation". That's someone else. Proprietary software is obviously not a requirement to make a living off software, unless you think Mozilla had been starving until now and that's why they have to put proprietary software in Firefox.

blueskin_ 13y ago
So every random small developer or indie game studio can get a multibillion dollar partnership with google? As it is, Mozilla's relationship with Google is looking shakier every day, as from Google's perspective it's undercutting their own business with Chrome, while from Mozilla's perspective, they promote firefox as being a browser that respects privacy, and partnering with an organisation as fundamentally anti-privacy as Google undermines that. Yes, Mozilla needs funding, but I'd rather pay a one off fee to purchase firefox if it really became necessary. Firefox could then come with no bundled search engines[1], and by default direct the user to the mozilla addons page to select which they would like to add, perhaps with a predefined list of popular choices given prominence similarly to the microsoft browser choice screen that gave prominence to Firefox, Chrome, Opera, IE and Safari, then had others listed if you cared to look further. I guess that whole argument is getting into the question of whether firefox is for power users or the drooling masses who wouldn't want to configure their search engines though. [1] I'd like to see it bundled with duckduckgo included, but I know that even if it came without any, many users would want to add google themselves. I respect their choice to in that case.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    >Chrome isn't a business, so much as another way to search the web. But instead of automated crawlers it has people who will do the searching, do the crawling. Kind of ingenious if you think about it. Google will make more (indirect) money off the average chrome user than the average firefox user, simply because they get far more metrics, analytics and data from them to make a profile for advertising. Obviously, the average firefox user is likely to have higher technical skill so possibly go to some lengths to confound tracking attempts, but that is beside the point, especially since comparable privacy addons are generally available for chrome too, with the primary exception of NoScript. (Edit: NoScript itself for chrome may not exist, but there are still comparable addons). Back when google signed the Mozilla deal, they didn't have a browser, and the stream of data they get from directing firefox users' searches through google was and still is more profitable to them than letting mozilla pick another default and denying them that data.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - blueskin_ 13y ago
        Isn't that exactly my point? Maintaining their (that is, Google's) majority is more important to them than a small financial loss as they make more money off those firefox users indirectly. If they didn't, they would probably write them off as a loss and let mozilla direct them somewhere else, especially since a majority would likely add google to their search engine list anyway.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  Yes, Mozilla needs funding, but I'd rather pay a one off fee to purchase firefox if it really became necessary. Note that this alone would not make Firefox proprietary software. It'd still be free, just not gratis, provided redistribution and modification rights are still present.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  > Yes, Mozilla needs funding, but I'd rather pay a one off fee to purchase firefox if it really became necessary. Wonderful! So you don't even have to wait - you can do almost exactly what you're describing right now! Just do the following: 1. Donate to the Mozilla Foundation[0] 2. Download IceWeasel, a version of Firefox that comes with no non-free software by default (but which allows you to install non-free plugins later on if you desire)[1] [0] https://mozilla.com/donate https://mozilla.com/donate [1] http://www.geticeweasel.org/ http://www.geticeweasel.org/
  - gcp 13y ago
    a version of Firefox that comes with no non-free software by default So is the Mozilla version, and that will even still be true after EME gets added.
sz4kerto 13y ago
Well, you're right, but still: Mozilla is funded mostly by companies that make money out of proprietary software.
blueskin_ 13y ago
Yes, I was using open source as a catch all term for free, both because free is far easier to misunderstand, and because free tends to create negative connotations for many people, especially at the large scale end. I know the FSF disapproves of that usage, but it seems convenient to me, it's one of the most common descriptions I see, and the alternatives are primarily acronym-based like FOSS, FLOSS, etc. and don't roll off the tongue as easily. None of that invalidates the point; namely that the FSF thinks that only free software should be allowed to be promoted to users (and possibly other software outright discouraged), which I find identical to DRM mindsets, just in the opposite direction
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  Yes, I was using open source as a catch all term for free, both because free is far easier to misunderstand, and because free tends to create negative connotations for many people, especially at the large scale end. Open source is very easy to misunderstand, as well. A lot of companies have been abusing the term by giving (limited) source code access without any actual rights to the code itself, and then calling their products "open source". I know the FSF disapproves of that usage, but it seems convenient to me, it's one of the most common descriptions I see, and the alternatives are primarily acronym-based like FOSS, FLOSS, etc. and don't roll off the tongue as easily. It's funny, because "convenience over ethics" is one of the major points that the FSF opposes. And there is a smooth and unequivocal alternative: libre.
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    Libre suffers from the same problem as 'free' perception-wise, and has the bonus issue of being hard to know if you're pronouncing it right. Libre means free, so any word association issues around free will apply by default. Also, not all open source software is free in price terms, which free/libre creates confusion around.
    - phaemon 13y ago
      No, libre does not mean "free as in zero-cost" it means "free as in freedom". The word for zero-cost is gratis.

by jordigh 13y ago

blueskin_ 13y ago

So every random small developer or indie game studio can get a multibillion dollar partnership with google? As it is, Mozilla's relationship with Google is looking shakier every day, as from Google's perspective it's undercutting their own business with Chrome, while from Mozilla's perspective, they promote firefox as being a browser that respects privacy, and partnering with an organisation as fundamentally anti-privacy as Google undermines that. Yes, Mozilla needs funding, but I'd rather pay a one off fee to purchase firefox if it really became necessary. Firefox could then come with no bundled search engines[1], and by default direct the user to the mozilla addons page to select which they would like to add, perhaps with a predefined list of popular choices given prominence similarly to the microsoft browser choice screen that gave prominence to Firefox, Chrome, Opera, IE and Safari, then had others listed if you cared to look further. I guess that whole argument is getting into the question of whether firefox is for power users or the drooling masses who wouldn't want to configure their search engines though. [1] I'd like to see it bundled with duckduckgo included, but I know that even if it came without any, many users would want to add google themselves. I respect their choice to in that case.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  >Chrome isn't a business, so much as another way to search the web. But instead of automated crawlers it has people who will do the searching, do the crawling. Kind of ingenious if you think about it. Google will make more (indirect) money off the average chrome user than the average firefox user, simply because they get far more metrics, analytics and data from them to make a profile for advertising. Obviously, the average firefox user is likely to have higher technical skill so possibly go to some lengths to confound tracking attempts, but that is beside the point, especially since comparable privacy addons are generally available for chrome too, with the primary exception of NoScript. (Edit: NoScript itself for chrome may not exist, but there are still comparable addons). Back when google signed the Mozilla deal, they didn't have a browser, and the stream of data they get from directing firefox users' searches through google was and still is more profitable to them than letting mozilla pick another default and denying them that data.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - blueskin_ 13y ago
      Isn't that exactly my point? Maintaining their (that is, Google's) majority is more important to them than a small financial loss as they make more money off those firefox users indirectly. If they didn't, they would probably write them off as a loss and let mozilla direct them somewhere else, especially since a majority would likely add google to their search engine list anyway.
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Yes, Mozilla needs funding, but I'd rather pay a one off fee to purchase firefox if it really became necessary. Note that this alone would not make Firefox proprietary software. It'd still be free, just not gratis, provided redistribution and modification rights are still present.
chimeracoder 13y ago
> Yes, Mozilla needs funding, but I'd rather pay a one off fee to purchase firefox if it really became necessary. Wonderful! So you don't even have to wait - you can do almost exactly what you're describing right now! Just do the following: 1. Donate to the Mozilla Foundation[0] 2. Download IceWeasel, a version of Firefox that comes with no non-free software by default (but which allows you to install non-free plugins later on if you desire)[1] [0] https://mozilla.com/donate https://mozilla.com/donate [1] http://www.geticeweasel.org/ http://www.geticeweasel.org/
- gcp 13y ago
  a version of Firefox that comes with no non-free software by default So is the Mozilla version, and that will even still be true after EME gets added.

sz4kerto 13y ago

Well, you're right, but still: Mozilla is funded mostly by companies that make money out of proprietary software.

blueskin_ 13y ago

Yes, I was using open source as a catch all term for free, both because free is far easier to misunderstand, and because free tends to create negative connotations for many people, especially at the large scale end. I know the FSF disapproves of that usage, but it seems convenient to me, it's one of the most common descriptions I see, and the alternatives are primarily acronym-based like FOSS, FLOSS, etc. and don't roll off the tongue as easily. None of that invalidates the point; namely that the FSF thinks that only free software should be allowed to be promoted to users (and possibly other software outright discouraged), which I find identical to DRM mindsets, just in the opposite direction

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Yes, I was using open source as a catch all term for free, both because free is far easier to misunderstand, and because free tends to create negative connotations for many people, especially at the large scale end. Open source is very easy to misunderstand, as well. A lot of companies have been abusing the term by giving (limited) source code access without any actual rights to the code itself, and then calling their products "open source". I know the FSF disapproves of that usage, but it seems convenient to me, it's one of the most common descriptions I see, and the alternatives are primarily acronym-based like FOSS, FLOSS, etc. and don't roll off the tongue as easily. It's funny, because "convenience over ethics" is one of the major points that the FSF opposes. And there is a smooth and unequivocal alternative: libre.
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  Libre suffers from the same problem as 'free' perception-wise, and has the bonus issue of being hard to know if you're pronouncing it right. Libre means free, so any word association issues around free will apply by default. Also, not all open source software is free in price terms, which free/libre creates confusion around.
  - phaemon 13y ago
    No, libre does not mean "free as in zero-cost" it means "free as in freedom". The word for zero-cost is gratis.