3 ms·

> What are you talking about? I'm talking about what the author of the article pointed out. Did you read the article? "Non-free software-powered. You want to

> What are you talking about? I'm talking about what the author of the article pointed out. Did you read the article? "Non-free software-powered. You want to host your own instance? You can't. Also, you can't modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create any derivative works based on the Pocket Technologies, including any of its files, tables or documentation, or any portion thereof, or determine or attempt to determine any source code, algorithms, methods or techniques embodied in the Pocket application or any portion thereof. Yes, this service is integrated in your favourite Open-source web browser."

coldpie 11y ago
So don't use Pocket. The web browser itself, including its integration with Pocket's public API, is all open source.
- morganvachon 11y ago
  I think I'll choose not to use Firefox anymore. Google swiftly reversed their bad decision to include a silent binary blob downloader, but I didn't go back to Chromium because that trust was broken. What I mean is, it's not so much about open source (I used closed source technology every day), it's about the overall openness of the project. Mozilla has chosen to integrate a proprietary service in what is supposed to be an open browser, and that bothers me enough to not use their product anymore. And if it's not already apparent, no, I won't be using Pocket either. :)
- hiou 11y ago
  The reality is if you are not concerned about trust, openness etc Chrome/Webkit is currently going to give you a better end user experience. With Mozilla losing the moral high ground, my reasons for using it over Chrome and especially Firefox OS over Android(or Firefox in Android) diminish greatly.
rockdoe 11y ago
Sorry, but you are making the MISTAKE of BELIEVING THE ARTICLE IS ACTUALLY CORRECT. This is the actual license of the Pocket code in Firefox: https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/components/pocket/pktApi.js https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/compo... It's a fucking BSD license. With an added remark that they own trademarks on the name.
- morganvachon 11y ago
  That's the license of the API integrated in Firefox. What I quoted is Pocket's Terms of Service[1], as explicitly stated in the article. And that's what I take issue with: It's a proprietary service the users didn't ask for in a browser that is supposed to champion openness. In other words, my decision isn't based on whether the API is open source. Mozilla chose a proprietary platform instead of an open platform; whether out of laziness or due to a kickback from Pocket, I simply don't like it. I like choice, and I choose to stop using Firefox. [1] https://getpocket.com/tos#restrictions https://getpocket.com/tos#restrictions
  - coldpie 11y ago
    Do you also object to their built-in integration with Google, Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Amazon, eBay, and Twitter?
    - morganvachon 11y ago
      I've never been happy with search engine integration with any browser, but that's been a dead horse for well over a decade now. Besides, I can remove those services from Firefox and substitute any search engine I want, or none at all. I can't change Firefox's choice of "read later" providers because it's hard coded to Pocket. They chose for me, and don't allow me to alter that choice. With search engines at least I can control the service provider.
      - coldpie 11y ago
        If they provide an extension, you can use whatever read-later provider you want. You can trivially remove or disable the Pocket button. I agree Firefox made a mistake not integrating this as an extension, and whether it should be included by default is a valid question. But you're really exaggerating any amount of "evil" being done here.
        morganvachon 11y ago

coldpie 11y ago

So don't use Pocket. The web browser itself, including its integration with Pocket's public API, is all open source.

morganvachon 11y ago
I think I'll choose not to use Firefox anymore. Google swiftly reversed their bad decision to include a silent binary blob downloader, but I didn't go back to Chromium because that trust was broken. What I mean is, it's not so much about open source (I used closed source technology every day), it's about the overall openness of the project. Mozilla has chosen to integrate a proprietary service in what is supposed to be an open browser, and that bothers me enough to not use their product anymore. And if it's not already apparent, no, I won't be using Pocket either. :)
hiou 11y ago
The reality is if you are not concerned about trust, openness etc Chrome/Webkit is currently going to give you a better end user experience. With Mozilla losing the moral high ground, my reasons for using it over Chrome and especially Firefox OS over Android(or Firefox in Android) diminish greatly.

rockdoe 11y ago

Sorry, but you are making the MISTAKE of BELIEVING THE ARTICLE IS ACTUALLY CORRECT. This is the actual license of the Pocket code in Firefox: https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/components/pocket/pktApi.js https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/compo... It's a fucking BSD license. With an added remark that they own trademarks on the name.

morganvachon 11y ago
That's the license of the API integrated in Firefox. What I quoted is Pocket's Terms of Service[1], as explicitly stated in the article. And that's what I take issue with: It's a proprietary service the users didn't ask for in a browser that is supposed to champion openness. In other words, my decision isn't based on whether the API is open source. Mozilla chose a proprietary platform instead of an open platform; whether out of laziness or due to a kickback from Pocket, I simply don't like it. I like choice, and I choose to stop using Firefox. [1] https://getpocket.com/tos#restrictions https://getpocket.com/tos#restrictions
- coldpie 11y ago
  Do you also object to their built-in integration with Google, Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Amazon, eBay, and Twitter?
  - morganvachon 11y ago
    I've never been happy with search engine integration with any browser, but that's been a dead horse for well over a decade now. Besides, I can remove those services from Firefox and substitute any search engine I want, or none at all. I can't change Firefox's choice of "read later" providers because it's hard coded to Pocket. They chose for me, and don't allow me to alter that choice. With search engines at least I can control the service provider.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      If they provide an extension, you can use whatever read-later provider you want. You can trivially remove or disable the Pocket button. I agree Firefox made a mistake not integrating this as an extension, and whether it should be included by default is a valid question. But you're really exaggerating any amount of "evil" being done here.
      - morganvachon 11y ago