Thunderbird
I did a clean install of Trisquel 5.0 and all went smoothly. It has a nice default set of applications now. Before I chased down the Maverick Gnuzilla PPA but Abrowser 6.0.2 removes the need for this. Although. I'll admit I'm not an Evolution fan and prefer Thunderbird. As I was installing though I wondered why this Mozilla application is still "branded." Debian uses Icedove to match the Firefox replacement - Iceweasel. Is there a rationale here? Or should I just try another mail client?
I could be wrong, but the way I understand it is like this: Firefox recommends non-free software, so we include a modified version that doesn't. If we make changes to Firefox, we can't call it Firefox, or use the Mozilla branding.
If Thunderbird doesn't recommend any non-free software, then there's no reason we can't include it as is, branding and all.
I am a member!
Thunderbird uses the exact same application framework Firefox uses, and therefore the exact same addons facility that Firefox uses. Branded Mozilla products use the Mozilla addons site, which is known to provide non-free software. I believe this was one of the issues that prevents vanilla Firefox from being included in Trisquel.
Trisquel does contain Thunderbird, but it uses the GNUZilla addons site instead of Mozilla's. Since Mozilla's fairly restrictive trademark policy prohibits using the official names for modified products, this Thunderbird might not even be able to be called Thunderbird.
The other problem with Firefox was also that it helps provide non-free plugins such as Flash. I don't believe Thunderbird ever did this (since you're not even supposed to be able to use Flash in email) but I could be wrong.
Yes, you are right. It says ANY modification/changes requires written permission to use their trademark. This is from their trademark site:
Modifications
If you're taking full advantage of the open-source nature of Mozilla's products and making significant functional changes, you may not redistribute the fruits of your labor under any Mozilla trademark, without Mozilla's prior written consent. For example, if the product you've modified is Firefox, you may not use Mozilla or Firefox, in whole or in part, in its name. Also, it would be inappropriate for you to say "based on Mozilla Firefox". Instead, in the interest of complete accuracy, you could describe your executables as "based on Mozilla technology", or "incorporating Mozilla source code." In addition, you may want to read the discussion on the "Powered by Mozilla" logo.
In addition, if you compile a modified version, as discussed above, with branding enabled (the default in our source code is branding disabled), you will require Mozilla's prior written permission. If it's not the unmodified installer package from www.mozilla.com, and you want to use our trademark(s), our review and approval of your modifications is required. You also must change the name of the executable so as to reduce the chance that a user of the modified software will be misled into believing it to be a native Mozilla product.
Again, any modification to the Mozilla product, including adding to, modifying in any way, or deleting content from the files included with an installer, file location changes, added code, modification of any source files including additions and deletions, etc., will require our permission if you want to use the Mozilla Marks. If you have any doubt, just ask us at name at domain.
Any reason why Thunderbird's version in Trisquel's dagda repository is 3.1.16, when the latest version is 9.0.1 ? I understand that we cannot provide the latest version of each software, but Thunderbird/Firefox seems to be a special case (Trisquel already provides the latest version of Abrowser: 9.0.1).
Trisquel follows Ubuntu's repositories (most of the packaging work is already done what lowers a lot the required affort). Trisquel 5 Dagda is based on Ubuntu 11.04 Natty Narwhal. In Natty's update repository, the version of Thunderbird is 3.1.16, whereas that of Firefox is 9.0.1:
http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=thunderbird&suite=natty-updates
http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=firefox&suite=natty-updates
I had a feeling this situation was a bit tricky. I'll use this as a motivation to experiment with Sylpheed.
This is why I sometimes feel that Chromium is less restrictive than Firefox with its license. You can pretty much modify Chromium with customizations and not get slapped on the wrist like with Mozilla right? I'd hate to see this cripple Thunderbird as well because I also prefer it to Evolution and Claws.
I know that this has been talked about before why Chromium isn't recommended by Trisquel due to the Chromium project maybe having non-free software as part of its codebase. If it is such a violator, it would be nice to know WHAT it exactly violates so there can be a FSF modified version of it like with IceCat for Firefox.
I'm not trying to hate on Firefox, Thunderbird, or its products. I've been using a Mozilla browser since 2001 and Firefox back when it was Phoenix. Its just that UI and speed wise, Chromium is still the more advanced browser.
You are confusing issues. The issue with Thunderbird is a trademark issue not a software freedom issue. The issue with chromium is a free software issue.
If you look at this copyright file provided by Ubuntu there are many files in there with unknown copyright. These potentially make the browser non-free. Those are exactly what potentially makes it a violator.
> You are confusing issues. The issue with Thunderbird is a trademark
> issue not a software freedom issue. The issue with chromium is a free
> software issue.
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2011-08/msg00014.html
shows that the Firefox problem (probably the same is with Thunderbird)
is both a trademark issue and a software freedom issue. Software is
free if trademarks, copyright, patents, source availability, possibility
of installing a modified version, etc don't make it nonfree.
That link isn't working for me. But yes trademarks and other things can render software non-free. I'll get back to you when I get a chance to read that link. However it hasn't rendered firefox non-free enough to create things like Icecat and abrowser.
You can use, study, modify and redistribute Mozilla's products. It is 100% Free software but recommends non-free software. That is why Trisquel maintains its own version without this problem.
The trademark restriction tells that modified versions of Mozilla's applications cannot bear the same name as the original ones. It is perfectly fine. It is only enforcing the trademark so that Mozilla's products can be properly identified (the whole objective of the trademark law). The same kind of restriction applies if you want to sell Mozilla's application, i.e., you must rename them. As Brett Smith says, this looks abusive. I wonder what qualifies as selling though. You can buy many magazines with Firefox or Thunderbird included on the CD that goes with it and, AFAIK, Mozilla has never complained about that.
You referenced the Ubuntu repositories but I'm assuming those files are merged in from https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/stable which is what I use to test websites.
Does this link help? http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html#3rdparty
Out of those, what do you see as violators? Second, when I open up Chromium and do about:credits, I see some ones listed in the program itself and not on the above listed site. I did some searches and apparently there are plenty of posts saying the licenses listed on the site aren't including a handful of licenses in the program. For example, "David M. Gay's floating point routines" which has this license:
/********************************************************
*
* The author of this software is David M. Gay.
*
* Copyright (c) 1991, 2000, 2001 by Lucent Technologies.
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
* purpose without fee is hereby granted, provided that this entire notice
* is included in all copies of any software which is or includes a copy
* or modification of this software and in all copies of the supporting
* documentation for such software.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS BEING PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
* WARRANTY. IN PARTICULAR, NEITHER THE AUTHOR NOR LUCENT MAKES ANY
* REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE MERCHANTABILITY
* OF THIS SOFTWARE OR ITS FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
*
********************************************************/
I have seen the link you posted. The thing is the chromium licensing is a mess. I'm not super good with legal stuff so I can't say which of those licenses is a problem or not (aside from the ones that are obviously free software) but some are not listed on the FSF license page and I can't tell you which ones will be problems or not.
The real problem is because the licensing is all over the place no one has really taken the time to verify that everything is free software. It quite possibly is but we assume it isn't until someone actually takes the time to go through and verify it. Basically we do the opposite of the courts. It is presumed guilty (proprietary) until proven otherwise (free). So until someone actually takes the time and proves it's free we will assume it isn't because of how messy it is.
I've downloaded and started reading the whole source tree for chromium. I think I'll post my findings in a new thread.
That's great! I recommended that Chromium license verification be added as a crowd-funded task, but it never got added. It's good to see that someone's finally doing it anyhow.
If anybody wants to help, just add to this http://piratepad.net/PedzEtqdmt
I'd like to help, but I'm not sure exactly what's entailed in that. I'm going to need a bit more than simply "just add to this." Specifically, how do I download the source tree? Once I do, what exactly am I looking for?
I downloaded the source tarball for chromium stable from the ppa on launchpad. The task that we have to do is to check each and every file in the source and verify that it is under a free license or not(or without an explicit license at all.
Could you post a link to the source tarball? I can't seem to find it.
There you go..
https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/stable/+files/chromium-browser_13.0.782.218%7Er98754.orig.tar.gz
This is the latest stable source package. :)
I like Thunderbird too. It's clever the way it finds the login config itself using Mozillas own ISP database. That's handy for Gmail because they use non-standard ports for IMAP and SMTP. Setting up Evolution, I have to manually enter the details.