Abrowser, in its current state, is irrelevant
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
Firefox 17 was released recently and many Trisquel users like myself are still stuck on version 14.0 of Abrowser from the repos. We are missing new features, security patches, and no clear direction on the status of the package.
Since part of the draw of Abrowser is the removal of copyrighted Mozilla assets and modification of the Addons manager, can't this be done with an extension? Maybe Abrowser can turn into a meta package that ties both the Ubuntu version of Firefox and the custom Trisquel extension with modifications. This wouldn't be breaking any rules since the Firefox package is distributed as-is and the extension would simply piggy back onto the install. Even if Trisquel doesn't want to include Firefox in the repos, the Abrowser metapackage will be up to date with the versioning and pull the file from an Ubuntu repo.
Trisquel users would benefit from an always up to date Firefox browser and less pressure on Ruben and the team in repackaging a seperate browser fork each release.
They could use Iceweasel-libre from Parabola. It's always up-to-date.
Just to notice.
In Trisquel 5.5 Abrowser is in the version 16.
And in Trisquel 6.0 Abrowser in in the version 17.
Even Ubuntu 11.10 (Trisquel 5.5) doesn't have an updated Firefox like our Trisquel 5.5.
I am a member!
Are you sure about that?
I'm looking at:
http://packages.ubuntu.com/oneiric/firefox
And it says it has v17 unless I'm reading something wrong.
Since when they updated that O_o ?
My mistake then. Sorry.
I think that there is a major security issue solved by the v17 because even the 11.04 got an update.
> Since part of the draw of Abrowser is the removal of copyrighted Mozilla assets and modification of the Addons manager, can't this be done with an extension?
There are tens of thousands of references to Mozilla and Firefox in the default Firefox source. Plus I'm not sure if the extension API would allow modification of all of those references.
I'm starting to write a small script to patch Firefox 16 to match Ruben's Abrowser 16 at the moment. But I will be testing for at least a few months before I do anything with it.
What I am saying is that people download Firefox and leave in the references and artwork and let an extension or some external script installed alongside Firefox that changes the settings to be more libre.
My point was to always get Firefox unmodified from the Ubuntu repos and make the changes after. On the other hand, Mozilla allows a user to make modifications personally on their computer either editing the about:config or extension and technically this is the same thing right?
Ahh, I see. Unfortunately the Firefox logo is considered proprietary, which is the main problem and why rebranding might be necessary. When the browser using the Abrower icon, anyone can modify it without potential legal issues.
However, there might be a way to make patching a little bit easier: SWF objects (and others) cause Firefox to recommend non-free plugins. To fix, maybe <object> and <embed> tags could be modified by a Greasemonkey script or something, to display a recommendation for Gnash or another replacement instead. So the problem might remain in the Firefox code, but it would not really be used and so no recommendations would ever be made.
I wonder if this would be acceptable? I don't see any reason why not.
My JavaScript knowledge isn't so great but I have done some in the past, so I might see what I can do in my spare time over the next few months.
When you talk about the Firefox assets, do you mean copyrighted or is there a rule with them that others cannot use their icons? If so, how does this work for Ubuntu? Do they have an agreement with Mozilla to distributute ONLY if the final package is approved by Mozilla and the core .deb is unmodified?
That is why I was talking about in my original post with the core .deb file being as-is through the downloading off of the repositories and the modifications are made locally on the user's computer. Modified versions are not stored on a server or distributed in any way and probably do not violate the rules Mozilla sets for the browser.
With Flash or any type of objects that may require a plugin, many times there is a line in the code set by the developer to get the plugin if the user does not have it installed. Since this is browser indepenedent, would you block that code as well so people don't have an option to install?
This was explained in this forum tens of times. One more time:
- Mozilla does not want the users to believe that crappy modified versions of their software (including software crippled with advertisement and/or malware) is Mozilla's fault. That is why they require, by the trademark law, that any modified version uses a different name and set of icons. This is exactly what the trademark law is for (help customers identify products) and this has absolutely *nothing to do with copyright*.
- Several projects modify Mozilla's software for different reasons (Debian simply wants to be able to apply patches without waiting for Mozilla, GNU and Trisquel wants to the Web browser not to invite the user to install proprietary plugins/extensions, etc.). As a consequence, the resulting Web browsers bear different names (Iceweasel, Icecat, Abrowser, etc.) and use different icons from Mozilla's.
- Ubuntu and Mozilla signed an agreement that is an exception to the trademark rule imposed to most other distributors.
If the Firefox package is downloaded and modified locally, doesn't it fall under personal and private use? It would be like me downloading Firefox and modifying the about:config. Only difference is a script or extension does it for me.
If you do not distribute the modified version you mean? I believe the trademark law does not apply then. You have the right to buy blank t-shirts and paint Adidas logos on it. You can not distribute it though (sell it or even give it away).
Those laws can be really tricky. For instance, you gave the example of the Adidas Logo, even if it is possible, you may remember that you can't (sometimes depending on the law) redistribute it, and by this fact the one that distributed the logo can be pursued in justice (like the one that used that logo in the T-Shirt for the same reason)... A little bit like gipsy stands with “prohibited copying” of a movie that sells it. They are not only attacked by justice (and police but this is another story), the one that buy it needs to give back the material (minimum) and the one that shared the video online can have problems too.
That is what I was thinking as the only distribution would be the download of the original file from the Ubuntu servers. The changes would happen soon after after apt installs Ubuntu and instantly the helper package alters the file.
You know how the flashplugin-installer package for Debian and Ubuntu works where the package itself pulls a file from a 3rd party and the flash installer itself isn't carrying the copyrighted material within itself? I am thinking along those lines where a Trisquel Firefox package pulls the .debs from Ubuntu.
First of all: I am not a lawyer.
I believe your package cannot be an additional dependency of the Firefox. The user would not intentionally install it. She is fooled: she thought she has installed the Firefox browser but received a modified version with the name and logo (despite them being trademarked).
If it cannot be a dependency, then the user can install the stock Firefox. And Trisquel refuses to propose a Web browser inviting the user to proprietary plugins/extensions.
I was thinking more towards a work environment where an IT department gives the software to the employees and has some control over what they install and the environment.
Trisquel's lax release schedule times may not be ideal for a business and this could be one way to stay up to date with an important piece of everyday software (web browser). If this was a home user, they will install what they want anyways non-free or not.
Oh, and I just found out Ruben has released his own script. I didn't know it was available on the website.
http://bzr.trisquel.info/package-helpers/trunk/annotate/head:/helpers/oneiric/make-firefox
One important reason to have the latest Firefox is that it will support WebRTC. WebRTC (real time communication) will be a standard that allows audio-video communication in HTML5, based in your web browser. It will be a free alternative to, for example, Skype.
Google are backing WebRTC strongly. They bought a company with the rights to a great AV codec, VP8. Then Google open sourced the codec - go Google! Google have been trying to have mandatory support for a single, free codec in WebRTC. There is quite a bit of resistance to this - many want support for the h264 codec to be mandatory.
VP8 is free, out-performs h264 and already has hardware support, which is more power efficient than software.
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-rtcweb-6.pdf
So please, let us have Abrowser based on the very latest Firefox! Mozilla aim to ship a stable implementation of WebRTC with Firefox 18 in January 2013. WebRTC is currently in Firefox nightly builds and Firefox Aurora.
Opus will be in WebRTC and its a beautiful codec. Royalty free, under an open license, and better quality than Speex and related codecs at low bitrate and better than AAC, MP3, and Ogg Vorbis at higher bitrates. If you have the latest VLC, check these out:
Slight correction to my previous post: the Firefox logo is freely available under the MPL. [1,2]
Possible trademark issues and non-free recommendations are still issues in the default Firefox.
[1]: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/branding/official/LICENSE
[2]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=541761
Mozilla Trademark Policy is an interesting read:
https://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
Some important notes:
* Modifications to the source code are not allowed to contain Mozilla branding without approval.
* Extensions/themes cannot be shipped with an unaltered copy of Firefox without approval.
The extension idea was an interesting idea (thanks t3g). But I somehow don't think Mozilla would approve of Trisquel modifications. Modification of the about:addons would almost certainly kill the idea, and it is essential to the Trisquel project.
Perhaps if Mozilla only included free addons and stopped recommending the Flash plugin then there would be no need to modify Firefox.
Another issue is that the trademark policy prohibits selling unmodified
copies, http://jxself.org/mozilla_trademark.shtml. This seems
significant enough to not use this package for distro releases (and
probably makes the package nonfree, although this isn't discussed
often).
A development build of Trisquel had Firefox with a separate JavaScript
file changing the addon list, this was changed due to what Andrew wrote
(and the no-selling clause).
One bug report (so far):
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=817505
Edit: also https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=817856
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben