4 ms·

"Its main advantage is an ethical one: it is entirely free software. While the Firefox source code from the Mozilla project is free software..." It's entirely

"Its main advantage is an ethical one: it is entirely free software. While the Firefox source code from the Mozilla project is free software..." It's entirely free software just like Mozilla's Firefox.

joosters 12y ago
Yes. Some impressive weasel words from GNU to try and make Mozilla sound bad there.
- admax88q 12y ago
  They're not weasel words. It's the stance that the FSF has always taken in regards to software that makes it easy for people to uninstall non-free software. Say what you want about their stance, at least they're consistent.
- AndrewOMartin 12y ago
  It's only weasel words if you don't read the second half of the sentence. Taken together it's an explicit description of the subtle but significant difference between Firefox and Icecat. Seriously, the comment I'm responding to and its parent made me so angry.
  - riquito 12y ago
    > they [Mozilla] distribute and recommend non-free software as plug-ins and addons What are the non free plugins distributed? And what are the ones recommended? Afaik you download Firefox without plugins. Is the message "for seeing this video you need Flash player" the recommendation?
    - LukeShu 12y ago
      > What are the non free plugins distributed? Mozilla distributes plenty of nonfree plugins at addons.mozilla.org; they aren't authored by Mozilla, but Mozilla distributes them. The "Get Add-ons" section of about:addons potentially recommends nonfree plugins; what is displayed there is based on user ratings, freedom isn't considered (though most of them seem to be free). Saying "you need a Flash Player" isn't necessarily a nonfree recommendation (there are other Flash Players), but the button that says "take care of it for me" and automatically picks Adobe Flash Player is.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        I really, really don't understand this mentality. I don't understand how someone can place some political concern (the distribution status of a piece of code) over a more practical one like "the user wants to view this content and needs X plugin to do it, so let's take care of that for them".
        justincormack 12y ago
        Read more Stallman then. It is a self consistent position that you can understand whether you agree or not.
        LukeShu 12y ago
        Even without going full-Stallman, a package following GNU FSDG (their guidelines about making recommendations and things) has value to someone who just cares about free software, but still uses some nonfree software. It's nice to know that while you can deliberately install nonfree software, doing a simple package or plugin search will only show free software. On the recommended plugins screen, no worrying "looks kinda neat, but I need to check if it's free"; just make the assumption that it is. No "oh, I hit the 'just make it work' button, and it picked the non-free option. The system picks between Gnash and Lightspark. If your thing doesn't work in those, and you actually do need Adobe, then you can consciously install it.
        aidenn0 12y ago
        If the user chose IceCat over Firefox, then it seems likely that the user would rather not view the content than have the software automatically download software that contradicts their ethical stance. Therefore it is doing what the user wants. Just not what you want. But that's okay since you will likely never be forced to use IceCat.
  - mwfunk 12y ago
    Well, the phrasing implies that Mozilla is being unethical, which is incredibly unfair. There's a huge difference between saying that "X is more in keeping with our ideals than Y" vs. saying that "X is more ethical than Y", particularly when the specific points of contention have little or nothing to do with things that most people even think of as having a moral or ethical dimension. I mean, it's typical for FSF communications, in the sense that it uses very, very broad terms ("free", "ethical", etc.) to mean very specific things as a way of confusing the reader (how can anyone hate freedom?!?). It's also a rhetorical ploy to emphasize their own certainty as to the correctness of their ideals. It doesn't make it any less cynical of them though (not that they're aware that they're being cynical), and it doesn't make it any less of a way to passive-aggressively throw unfair shade on people or organizations who don't share 100% of their beliefs with equal fervor.
- hsivonen 12y ago
  Yeah. IceCat even loads Flash Player if you are knowledgeable enough to install it. But if you aren't, it doesn't tell you about it.
JoshTriplett 12y ago
That text used to say something different, because Firefox used to contain proprietary bits in its main distribution: it had a proprietary system to capture and submit crash reports (now replaced with a FOSS solution), and proprietary images as part of theming and branding (not sure if those have all been replaced yet). That was part of the motivation behind the GNU modified build.

joosters 12y ago

Yes. Some impressive weasel words from GNU to try and make Mozilla sound bad there.

admax88q 12y ago
They're not weasel words. It's the stance that the FSF has always taken in regards to software that makes it easy for people to uninstall non-free software. Say what you want about their stance, at least they're consistent.
AndrewOMartin 12y ago
It's only weasel words if you don't read the second half of the sentence. Taken together it's an explicit description of the subtle but significant difference between Firefox and Icecat. Seriously, the comment I'm responding to and its parent made me so angry.
- riquito 12y ago
  > they [Mozilla] distribute and recommend non-free software as plug-ins and addons What are the non free plugins distributed? And what are the ones recommended? Afaik you download Firefox without plugins. Is the message "for seeing this video you need Flash player" the recommendation?
  - LukeShu 12y ago
    > What are the non free plugins distributed? Mozilla distributes plenty of nonfree plugins at addons.mozilla.org; they aren't authored by Mozilla, but Mozilla distributes them. The "Get Add-ons" section of about:addons potentially recommends nonfree plugins; what is displayed there is based on user ratings, freedom isn't considered (though most of them seem to be free). Saying "you need a Flash Player" isn't necessarily a nonfree recommendation (there are other Flash Players), but the button that says "take care of it for me" and automatically picks Adobe Flash Player is.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      I really, really don't understand this mentality. I don't understand how someone can place some political concern (the distribution status of a piece of code) over a more practical one like "the user wants to view this content and needs X plugin to do it, so let's take care of that for them".
      - justincormack 12y ago
        Read more Stallman then. It is a self consistent position that you can understand whether you agree or not.
      - LukeShu 12y ago
        Even without going full-Stallman, a package following GNU FSDG (their guidelines about making recommendations and things) has value to someone who just cares about free software, but still uses some nonfree software. It's nice to know that while you can deliberately install nonfree software, doing a simple package or plugin search will only show free software. On the recommended plugins screen, no worrying "looks kinda neat, but I need to check if it's free"; just make the assumption that it is. No "oh, I hit the 'just make it work' button, and it picked the non-free option. The system picks between Gnash and Lightspark. If your thing doesn't work in those, and you actually do need Adobe, then you can consciously install it.
      - aidenn0 12y ago
        If the user chose IceCat over Firefox, then it seems likely that the user would rather not view the content than have the software automatically download software that contradicts their ethical stance. Therefore it is doing what the user wants. Just not what you want. But that's okay since you will likely never be forced to use IceCat.
- mwfunk 12y ago
  Well, the phrasing implies that Mozilla is being unethical, which is incredibly unfair. There's a huge difference between saying that "X is more in keeping with our ideals than Y" vs. saying that "X is more ethical than Y", particularly when the specific points of contention have little or nothing to do with things that most people even think of as having a moral or ethical dimension. I mean, it's typical for FSF communications, in the sense that it uses very, very broad terms ("free", "ethical", etc.) to mean very specific things as a way of confusing the reader (how can anyone hate freedom?!?). It's also a rhetorical ploy to emphasize their own certainty as to the correctness of their ideals. It doesn't make it any less cynical of them though (not that they're aware that they're being cynical), and it doesn't make it any less of a way to passive-aggressively throw unfair shade on people or organizations who don't share 100% of their beliefs with equal fervor.
hsivonen 12y ago
Yeah. IceCat even loads Flash Player if you are knowledgeable enough to install it. But if you aren't, it doesn't tell you about it.

JoshTriplett 12y ago

That text used to say something different, because Firefox used to contain proprietary bits in its main distribution: it had a proprietary system to capture and submit crash reports (now replaced with a FOSS solution), and proprietary images as part of theming and branding (not sure if those have all been replaced yet). That was part of the motivation behind the GNU modified build.