On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:52:50 +0100 al3xu5 / dotcommon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Il giorno venerdì 15/01/2010 01:22:34 CET > Javier Garcia <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > > so.. if all the FF licenses are free, FF 3.0 is also totally free??? > > not exactly... > > the 3-licensed FF source code is free software, but > > the binary FF released by Mozilla are not freely redestribuable > (including trademark and copyrighted stuff) so they are not free > > FF includes some non-free plugins (plugins with a non free software > license) like adobe reader and flash Wrong, no plug-ins are included in a default Firefox install (besides the "default" dummy plugin that doesn't do anything; I think that's even been removed lately). > FF recommend non-free software as plug-ins and addons Not sure I care. As much as I absolutely *hate* Flash, it's now pretty much a required component for surfing the Web. Gnash just doesn't cut it for now... I'd very much love to see Flash killed and Open Web things used in its place (such as SVG, canvas, etc.), but I don't see that happening anytime soon. > FF suggest using non free formats Such as what? > so... please AVOID USING FF, use GNU/IceCat instead! ... and why exactly would anybody in his/her right mind recommend that people use some random program that really is just somebody else's code, which adds some more code that hasn't been reviewed from anybody who actually knows what's going on, and very likely hasn't been run through any of Mozilla's unit tests, plus likely wasn't compiled with all appropriate optimizations that Mozilla has figured out. Please explain that to me. (note that my problem is with your reasoning for recommending IceCat and not with anything Giuseppe has done). ~reed -- Reed Loden - <[email protected]> / <[email protected]> GNU Project [gnu.org] / Free Software Foundation [fsf.org] -- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
