I'm not sure it's really accurate to categorize asking for a vanilla copy of firefox, which might not comply with the FSDG, as nonfree software. The primary issue with Firefox that makes it qualify as "nonfree" is that the add-ons tool brings you to something that might guide a user towards nonfree software right? Thus I think this isn't exactly correct framing, since firefox itself isn't nonfree? There is a difference if I, as a user, install Firefox as free software, and I am aware of the issue with the default extensions kit, and end up installing no nonfree software on my computer, right?
Am I missing something? What makes Firefox itself nonfree (which I think is not quite the same thing as not compliant with the FSDG)? Adonay Felipe Nogueira via writes: > I came late to this issue, but I think this should have been posted on > development mailing list. It's not good if we use the general help list > to foster non-free software like Firefox or those which are third-party > package managers with no default repository explicitly commited to > following the GNU FSDG. > > Furthermore, to ease the sides of both the thread starter and the > community, I'm taking a simplification in that I'm considering the use > of such non-free software for purpose of developing or improving a free > replacement. That means I'm not discussing the merit of whether the > question should or shouldn't have been answered the way it was. > > One must be remind though, that the GNU FSDG isn't only about the > packages distributed (software, documentation, text fonts, etc), but > also about the community, and this is one of the things that keep Debian > out of the list of free system distributions. > > Em 12/05/2020 16:23, Efraim Flashner escreveu: >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:31:02PM +0200, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote: >>> >>> Christopher Lemmer Webber <cweb...@dustycloud.org> skribis: >>> >>>> Anyone have a package definition (or channel) for a recent vanilla >>>> firefox? >>>> >>>> I understand the decision to prefer distributing Icecat instead in Guix >>>> proper, but I need a more recent version of things... I suspect others >>>> sometimes do too. I have a feeling at least someone in the community >>>> has written such a definition... would you mind sharing? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> - Chris >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> There is a channel at >>> https://forge.monarch-pass.net/warrah/warrah-nonfsdg with a package >>> definition for Firefox 74.0.1. I haven't tested it though. >> >> Other options include using the now official flatpak copy of firefox. If >> you do go that route make sure to use the '--user' flag for flatpak so >> it doesn't segfault while trying to write to /var/lib/flatpak. >>