Using Firefox with Trisquel

6 replies [Last post]
Joined: 07/24/2017

G'day Trisquel Forums.

I am running Trisquel Mini 8.0 64-Bit.

I can't stand using FSF web browsers such as Abrowser or Icecat or Iceweasel and would rather use Firefox or Chromium so I have gone ahead and installed them on my system.

But I am wondering why are these web browsers removed from Trisquels repository?

What freedom issues am I facing by using these web browsers?

Isn't it less bad to run Firefox or Chromium then using a proprietary web browser such as Internet Explorer or Edge?

Joined: 05/01/2018

Both Firefox and Chromium are in Debian's main repository, suggesting that they meet Debian's free software guidelines (DFSG). Why they are not endorsed by Trisquel, probably because trademark issues.


I am a member!

Joined: 06/19/2015

On 3/21/20 10:03 PM, name at domain wrote:
> What freedom issues am I facing by using these web browsers?

Restrictions on redistribution of exact copies (Freedom 2). "Mozilla
branded programs such as Firefox and Thunderbird are not free software
unless their names are changed. This is due to Mozilla's trademark
policy[2] that forbids selling copies of unmodified executables." [1]


DRM via Encrypted Media Extensions (Freedom 0).

Promoting proprietary software (GNU Free Software Distribution
Guidelines: Documentation).

Caleb Herbert
(816) 892-9669

Joined: 07/23/2017

pale moon ( is a fork of firefox without "Encrypted Media Extensions" DRM ( however it still has its name and logo trademarked
it can be easily fixed by forking (like in windows-only "MyPal" project: except building web browser from source is not trivial so including a fork like this in trisquel's package archive would be nice IMO

Joined: 09/13/2010

"however it still has its name and logo trademarked"

To be sure, trademarks in and of themselves aren't a problem. It only became a problem when Mozilla included terms for distributing copies of the software in the trademark license. Trademarks are supposed to identify a source, not control distribution of copies. Distribution (i.e., the making of copies) is supposed to be the realm of copyright but Mozilla's trying to go there via trademark instead. And: Once rules for making copies came into play it became necessary to evaluate those rules in light of The FSF thusly said

Sadly, the Palemoon people are trying to do this too.

Joined: 12/03/2016

Of note here is that RMS, FSF, and freedom "purists" in general are often accused of being hippie, anti-capitalist, hostile to business, even communist. And yet here's a key example of them insisting in principle on the freedom of a user to SELL copies of software, SPECIFICALLY as part of a for-profit COMMERCIAL enterprise. Mozilla permits Firefox to be sold but only for charities.

(Note, FSF reference above was previously a typo reading FSI, now fixed along with a few spelling errors)

Ignacio Agulló
Joined: 07/30/2019

On 26/03/20 21:31, wrote:
> Mozilla permits Firefox to be sold but only for charities.

I'm pretty sure you can sell Abrowser or IceCat.

Ignacio Agulló · name at domain