Re: [Trisquel-users] Freedom issues regarding Abrowser.
> Since Abrowser is configured to execute all JavaScript by default, Ebay, Amazon, and even DuckDuckGo execute proprietary JavaScript when used in Abrowser. By suggesting these search engines, Abrowser guides the user toward proprietary JavaScript. I think that if Abrowser is not going to block non-free JS by default as Icecat does, it should not go out of it's way to direct users to pages that have non-free JS. Indeed. Pointing to a proprietary addon or to poprietary javascript on a search engine is equally bad freedom wise. No difference at all. And if we think we shall exclude the first we shall by the same logic exclude the second.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Freedom issues regarding Abrowser.
Yes, indeed. But as Chaosmonk pointed out in the other thread it is an ongoing reportesld issue :) Hopefully it will be addressed by the developers.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Freedom issues regarding Abrowser.
They could be running free JS, but the browser directs them to a page that relies on proprietary JavaScript. It leads to proprietary software.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Freedom issues regarding Abrowser.
Indeed. Pardon me for bringing up this subject again, I totally was too lazy to search the forum. Glad to be reminded that this is in fact a reported issue.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Freedom issues regarding Abrowser.
> It's only a freedom issue if someone uses the JavaScript engine in > Abrowser to run non-free JavaScript. > No, because those organizations don't have problems with us using their > trademarks to indicate use of their search engine. Maybe these things aren't a problem on their own, but I think that they may constitute a problem together. Since Abrowser is configured to execute all JavaScript by default, Ebay, Amazon, and even DuckDuckGo execute proprietary JavaScript when used in Abrowser. By suggesting these search engines, Abrowser guides the user toward proprietary JavaScript. I think that if Abrowser is not going to block non-free JS by default as Icecat does, it should not go out of it's way to direct users to pages that have non-free JS. https://trisquel.info/en/issues/24453 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Trisquel-users] Freedom issues regarding Abrowser.
"Isn't it a freedom issue that Abrowser has JS enabled by default without saying anything to the user? Also that the default search engine used in the address bar is duckduckgo with JS enabled?" It's only a freedom issue if someone uses the JavaScript engine in Abrowser to run non-free JavaScript. They could just as well be running free JavaScript with it. "Furthermore isn't it a 'branding issue' that when you go to preferences and "search" you can click on a drop down menu which lets you select Google, Amazon, Ebay and Twitter as search engines?" No, because those organizations don't have problems with us using their trademarks to indicate use of their search engine. This is not the case for Mozilla's trademarks which is why Trisquel removes them.
[Trisquel-users] Freedom issues regarding Abrowser.
Isn't it a freedom issue that Abrowser has JS enabled by default without saying anything to the user? Also that the default search engine used in the address bar is duckduckgo with JS enabled? Furthermore isn't it a "branding issue" that when you go to preferences and "search" you can click on a drop down menu which lets you select Google, Amazon, Ebay and Twitter as search engines?
