5 ms·

> 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

by 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.

by riquito 12y ago

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.