Is there anyway of getting firefox with apget
In Trisquel, the defaut browser is ABrowser, which is basically just Firefox without the branding (with a few dodgy bits removed and some privacy/ security add-ons added). GNU IceCat, another rebranded and modified fork of Firefox is available using apt-get. Is there a reason you particularly need the Firefox branded version of the program?
Thanks. How can I install firefox with aptget. I had to download it from mozilla.
Also, one must note that free/libre software activists won't be able to
help in this case because it's non-(free/libre) software, so perhaps
it's best for all those involved if you do stay with Abrowser or IceCat.
If you want, you can also install IceCat from Guix package manager,
although the one from Trisquel seems to be currently more up-to-date. :D
* Palestrante e consultor sobre software livre (não confundir com
* "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre, por isso não uso. Iguais a ele prefiro
Ring, ou Tox. Quer outras formas de contato? Adicione o vCard que
está no endereço acima aos teus contatos.
* Pretende me enviar arquivos .doc, .ppt, .cdr, ou .mp3? OK, eu
aceito, mas não repasso. Entrego apenas em formatos favoráveis ao
software livre. Favor entrar em contato em caso de dúvida.
* "People said I should accept the world. Bullshit! I don't accept the
--- Richard Stallman
I wouldn't say not to accept the world completely, more likely, change the parts of the world for the better that need changing...
that's my thoughts on Richard Stallman's quote.
Please just take a chill pill, this isn't life or death.
Are you sure you know the changes mozilla has made? to firefox?
read this and you will see firefox is nonfree.
ps, I thought you honestly were trolling before because it confused me why anyone wouldn't know about mozilla adding drm into firefox.
DRM and free software do not mix. I had a feeling you were trolling me, alas I wanted to hope you were better than that. alas to no avail.
when we say free software, we mean more than just no charge. we mean: Free as in freedom like I posted lower.
please if you are here for a flame war, go to the troll lounge. or better yet I hate to say,
your wasting everyone's time including your own.
why bother waste your time being a nasty troll.
Now if you wish to necro feel free. I won't care.
some people may but I won't but this is just completely unacceptable.
or at least take a while to calm down. This isn't healthy and is getting dull and annoying.
Can ABrowser take addons like lastpass?
It can. But you should not run LastPass if you value your freedoms. We had this conversion one week ago: https://trisquel.info/forum/new-trisquel-audio-flickering-between-speaker-and-audio-jack#comment-110168
can I add a repository?
IF you really don't want a more secure version of firefox you can indeed install it from their website.
I am however thinking you may be just putting us on so...
if that is the case good trolling, if not which I doubt, your better off with Abrowser or Icecat especially.
They are much more secure due to removing the webrtc plugin for firefox which is very insecure.
They are not actually incorrect. We work on "FSF free", not "Debian free", not "Fedora free", not someone else's "free." The FSF recognizes Firefox as non-free too.
The direct quote from https://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.en.html#f2 is "Why not recommend Firefox? As explained in our Free Software Definition, all four freedoms must be available on both a commercial and non-commercial basis. Mozilla's trademark policy serves to limit Freedom 2 to gratis distribution only, making the software nonfree."
This isn't actually specific to Firefox but all Mozilla-branded software. What Mozilla is doing via trademark law to remove part of the 4 freedoms is not commonly done (most usually just require you to rebrand if you modify which is okay, and don't impose actual distribution restrictions/requirements of exact copies to be non-commercial) so I don't necessarily expect you to pick up on all of the subtleties so I'll try to go over everything.
Copyright isn't the only thing that can be used to grant or take away the four essential freedoms. The FSF's Free Software Definition contemplates the possibility of it happening outside copyright when it says "we can't possibly list all the ways that might happen" and goes on to say that if there were one that "restricts the user in an unusual way that copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably conclude it is nonfree."
Where does that non-commercial requirement come from? I blogged about it a few years ago:
https://jxself.org/mozilla_trademark.shtml The quote from their trademark policy is:
"If you want to distribute the unchanged official binaries using the Mozilla Marks, you may do so, without receiving any further permission from Mozilla, as long as you comply with this Trademark Policy and you distribute them without charge."
You can even go to https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and see where it says that "'Free software' does not mean 'noncommercial'. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution."
That includes charging for copies.
Brett Smith from the FSF also confirmed it: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2011-08/msg00014.html
Mozilla has found a clever way to take away freedom #2 using trademark law instead of using copyright law. It is as if Firefox were under a non-commercial license. It's achieved through means outside of copyright, but the net effect is the same and it still has the force of law behind it. Fortunately, their method leaves a loophole open for derivative works such as GNU IceCat to escape this and this is exactly what they do.
The Trisquel Project invoked Freedom #3 and turned it into Abrowser, so as to restore the missing part of Freedom #2 (the ability to distribute exact copies commercially.) But the software as you get it from Mozilla doesn't directly come with Freedom #2 intact. And when all four freedoms are not available, or are insufficient, it's non-free software. In following our community guidelines we don't provide help for non-free software.
Even if you don't consider it non-free software, we and the FSF do. In following our community guidelines we don't provide help for non-free software: https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/trisquel-community-guidelines so you will need to look elsewhere for your "help."
I am kind of confused as to why you are getting nasty with me,
but know that if you have the skill to actually do such a thing I don't see why it isn't possible.
Though as I said before, you are better off with Icecat rather than Firefox.
I feel like you need to do more research before you attack people who know much about this stuff.
IF you don't have all these freedoms, it may be open source which is what you seem to be thinking of, but it isn't free.
The four essential freedoms
A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
If someone wants to use Firefox, they ought to use Debian. Iceweasel is now Firefox in Debian because Mozilla has changed its rules or whatever regarding their logo. This is my understanding that the logo is free now. I may be wrong of course.
If Abrowser is Firefox with some changes made in about:config, then you only need to turn off DRM in Firefox through about:config.
Not everything is good in Abrowser: for instance the built-in PDF reader ought to be turned off by default because of the risks inherent in JS (see huge exploit not so long ago).
If Abrowser has some different code inside, then it’s better to use Abrowser. Yet, if you want more privacy, you’ll need to make changes in Abrowser about:config.
Privacy is also part of freedom, IMHO.
The possibility of adding ubuntu repositories to Trisquel makes this distro not so very different from Debian when you think of it, even if the Trisquel repositories are totally separate from the Ubuntu one, whereas the Debian nonfree repositories are on the same servers (or at least belong to same domain).
Yet adding ubuntu repos or worse any kind of ppa isn’t a good idea, for obvious reasons.
This is why I recommend people to use Guix package manager, instead of
adding custom PPAs.
What does it mean for a logo (a notion relating to the trademark law) to be "free" (a notion relating to tyhe copyright law)?
Does Mozilla's trademark now authorize for-profit redistribution of exact copies of the binaries?
"Does Mozilla's trademark now authorize for-profit redistribution of exact copies of the binaries?"
No, Mozilla's trademark policy is unchanged in that regard.
Not the official Mozilla binaries.
"Not the official Mozilla binaries"
Or indeed not even the unofficial Mozilla binaries that you compile yourself. (This is the "If you compile Mozilla unmodified source code (including code and config files in the installer) and do not charge for it..." part of their policy.)
The only way you can is via modification to remove the name & logo and make a modified version (like Abrowser.)
But charging for exact copies (which is part of freedom #2) has never been possible whether you use the "official Mozilla binaries" or compile exact copies of those yourself.