As far as I know not even Chromium is free/libre, see
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Chromium . Also I would recommend all to ask the
FSF about the freedom issues with Firefox. -- * Ativista do software livre *
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno * Membro dos grupos avaliadores de *
Software (Free Software Directory) * Distribuições de sistemas (FreedSoftware)
* Sites (Free JavaScript Action Team) * Não sou advogado e não fomento os não
livres * Sempre veja o spam/lixo eletrônico do teu e-mail * Ou coloque todos os
recebidos na caixa de entrada * Sempre assino e-mails com OpenPGP * Chave
pública: vide endereço anterior * Qualquer outro pode ser fraude * Se não tens
OpenPGP, ignore o anexo "signature.asc" * Ao enviar anexos * Docs., planilhas e
apresentações: use OpenDocument * Outros tipos: vide endereço anterior * Use
protocolos de comunicação federadas * Vide endereço anterior * Mensagens
secretas somente via * XMPP com OMEMO * E-mail criptografado e assinado com
OpenPGP Wed May 27 02:16:47 GMT-03:00 2020 Dmitry Alexandrov <d...@gnui.org>:
Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote: > 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? Nope. Firefox, as
distributed by Mozilla, is simply not a free software. Just reread the
agreement with Mozilla [0] you are supposed to abide. You are _not_ free even
to redistribute _exact_ copies of it, let aside distributing modified ones: |
You may distribute unaltered copies of Mozilla Firefox and other Mozilla
software from Mozilla.org without express permission from Mozilla as long as
you comply with the following rules: | | — You may not charge for the software.
That means: | · Distribution may not be subject to any fee. | · Distribution
may not be tied to purchasing a product or service. There are many other points
there, that alone enough to render it nonfree. My favourite one: | — When
distributing you must distribute the most recent version of Firefox and other
Mozilla software. [0]
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/distribution-policy/ > Thus
I think this isn't exactly correct framing, since firefox itself isn't nonfree?
As you see, it is. You could build something very similar to Firefox from
sources, of course, but it would not be Mozilla Firefox. No much difference
from Google Chrome in that regard. But there is one difference, that is to
credit of Google and that I would not underestimate — the free counterpart of
their browser has a canonical name — Chromium. While Mozillaʼs browser is
anonymous and, unless are fine with adverting nonfree software, cannot be
referred in any concise way; hence the whole zoo of rebrands: Icecat,
Iceweasel, Fennec (F-Droid), Abrowser (Trisquel)...
