Stallman Unsure Whether Firefox Is Truly Free

Slatterz writes "Among the theories Stallman bandies about in this Q&A are: Facebook may not share private data with the CIA, Firefox isn't really 'free software,' and his dreams of a day where nobody is involved in developing or promoting proprietary software. Agree or disagree?"

Comments

Leave Stallman alone *sobs*

[junglee_iitk]

Firefox is a strange case, since initially the sources were free software but the binaries released by the Mozilla Foundation were not free. They were non-free for two reasons: they included one non-free module, Talkback, for which sources were not available (even to the Mozilla Foundation); and because they carried a restrictive EULA [end-user licence agreement].

I think these two problems have both been corrected, so maybe the distributed Firefox binaries are free software today.

He is sure Firefox was not free.

He is knows the problems have been corrected.

He is not sure right now because he uses lynx.

Re:Leave Stallman alone *sobs*

[jonbryce]

He's said in the past that he doesn't have a problem with Trademarks as long as it is easy to remove them.

It's all part of the idea that you should make it clear that you modified the program so that the original programmer's reputation isn't harmed by any bugs you introduce.

Re:Leave Stallman alone *sobs*

[Mr. Underbridge]

What are you on about? There was a licensing conflict with Mozilla and Debian, so they forked. If anyone's doing a dick move, it's the Mozilla Foundation for being so anal about their logo.

It's trademark, they defend it or lose it. Blame the system.

He doesn't say Firefox isn't really free software

[chrb]

He in fact says:

Firefox is a strange case, since initially the sources were free software but the binaries released by the Mozilla Foundation were not free. They were non-free for two reasons: they included one non-free module, Talkback, for which sources were not available (even to the Mozilla Foundation); and because they carried a restrictive EULA [end-user licence agreement].

I think these two problems have both been corrected, so maybe the distributed Firefox binaries are free software today.

That is easy

[DVega]

It is not. The Firefox logo is not free. Thus, any software that includes that logo is non-free also, and Debian developers know it very well

Of course it's free

[DrXym]

All of the code is open source and tri-licenced. Do with it what you want.

Re:well, this part makes me wonder if I can share

[jonbryce]

You are talking about in-house software which employs about 90% of programmers out there. People will continue to commission that sort of software regardless of the copyright model or lack of one. The only difference free software makes is that they will have a pool of free libraries to use which will make development cheaper and the end product more reliable.

Re:People scoffed at my contention...

[chrb]

"You can even be a programmer. Most paid programmers are developing custom software--only a small fraction are developing non-free software. The small fraction of proprietary software jobs are not hard to avoid." Richard Stallman

"Programmers could develop custom software by day, develop general purpose free software for fun. Or pay people for developing free software. Or sell support, or copies of free software." Richard Stallman

It seems RMS fully supports the idea of paid software development. I wonder why so many people think differently - poor reporting, or just personal bias?

Re:I Just Took A Huge Shit

[TehZorroness]

How does he restrict how anyone licenses their software? All he has the power to do is choose how the software he writes is licensed. Considering this, his ideals must mean a lot to people considering the extraordinary amount of free software out there today.

Re:I'm unsure if RMS is truly free.

[Just Some Guy]

It's ok to get some other sap to commit unconscionable behavior on your behalf?

He had the "sap" delete the offending software and replace it with something he wanted to use.

He is not able to install Linux? (Possibly because he keeps looking in the library under 'G'.) Installing Linux is not worth his time, but he has a sap with less worthy time to do these things?

I promise you RMS is capable of installing Linux. I imagine the conversation went something like this: "This thing doesn't have a CD-ROM. I have three speeches in the next two days - could you figure out how to get Linux onto it while I'm packing?"

Re:I Just Took A Huge Shit

[Aphoxema]

You also gain nothing from their work. The BSD license gives you more freedom to simply hand out your work and not have to worry where it goes to, but the GPL gives you the opportunity to see some benefit out of someone else deriving your software.

Your freedom remains intact when someone derives your code and slaps an EULA on it, but not the user's or the code's (if you believe software has rights of it's own.)

Neither the GPL or the BSD license is there to save your ass, it's to protect the end user.