Add-ons encouraging non-free audio formats and iTune store URLs detected in Abrowser

GNU Free System Distribution Guideline (FSDG) explicitely states the following:-

"Programs in the system should not suggest installing nonfree plugins, documentation, and so on.".

The "iTunes" plugin is from Rhythmbox, and the "Windows Media Player" plugin is from Totem. Both are free software.

Hi Legimet,

Agree they are from Rhythmbox and Totem, which are free software.

The issue is the use of non-free propritary audio and video format like wms, wma, and asx.

*Will it not lure the users away from respecting free software counterparts like Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora?

*Are we teaching users that they can use third party propritory add-ons which can host and deliver non-free codecs for their convenience and not respecting their freedom are BETTER than freely available codecs?

*More Importantly, isn't this a form of Service as a Software substitute(SAAS/SAASS), at least in the case of iTunes which can control the user's mobile device player to update/repair files and host a collection of latest music/video channels?

Indirectly, aren't we hampering the meaning of Free Software by maintaining these plugins in the first place? Rhythmbox and Totem should be encouraged to either remove or replace these pluggins with free counterparts.

I would like the community to realise the ethical threat it can pose when free software accedently include such 'intrusions' from known propritory counterparts of free software.

> non-free propritary audio and video format

Formats aren't free or non-free in the sense software is. We should provide compatibility with as many file formats as possible, and that's what those free plugins do.

Closing as wrong.

Dear quidam,

I would suggest you to read the complete Bug history and go through GNU-FSDG's guidelines for free distribution systems, before taking a final decision as to whether the bug is wrong or genuine.

I guess you want a more detailed explanation.

> The following add-ons in Abrowser are suspected to be encouraging non-free audio formats

Formats are not programs. Because of this you would have to define "non-free format", as it does not apply to the free software definition.
We must support playing as many formats as possible as long as only free software is used to do so.

> Eventhough these Add-ons are NOT ACTIVE BY DEFAULT

All plugins are turned off by default so the user gets asked before they get executed, as there are some privacy concerns related to the use of any plugin. There are no freedom implications here.

>, they can be TURNED ON IMPLICITLY, if a user requests to use an iTune online store or download audio files that falls in Microsoft Propritory audio file support format.

Again, the fact that Microsoft designed a format doesn't mean we should not support it, as long as just free software is used to achieve it.

> This Bug is extremely critical, as it can compromise Abrowser in case such online channels have hidden malware/spyware accedently/deliberately incoperated in them.

This plugins do not execute code, only play videos or audio. There is a small risk of privacy leaks with the use of any browser plugin, thus they require the user's approval to get executed.

> Also it violates FSF's Free Software Distribution Guidelines.

No, it does not.

> Will it not lure the users away from respecting free software counterparts like Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora?

You seem to confuse "free software" with "patent free", which are very different concepts. Ogg Vorbis is a patent unencumbered format that has both free and non-free implementations. Other formats have patents covering them. We don't consider patents legitimate, so we don't care. (You can check the FSDG for that).

> Are we teaching users that they can use third party propritory add-ons which can host and deliver non-free codecs for their convenience and not respecting their freedom are BETTER than freely available codecs?

We only distribute free software, and that includes the implementation of the plugins you refer to. We do not recommend the installation of any non-free implementation of this same plugins. In fact, having a free software implementation in place prevents the users from needing to install anything else, thus avoiding the non-free implementations from being installed.

> More Importantly, isn't this a form of Service as a Software substitute(SAAS/SAASS), at least in the case of iTunes which can control the user's mobile device player to update/repair files and host a collection of latest music/video channels?

This plugins just play music or videos in the browser, or open the appropriate free programs in the system to handle those files.

> Indirectly, aren't we hampering the meaning of Free Software by maintaining these plugins in the first place?

No. Any popular format should get a free software player.

> Rhythmbox and Totem should be encouraged to either remove or replace these pluggins with free counterparts.

Rhythmbox and Totem are the plugins. They are already free software.

>I would like the community to realise the ethical threat it can pose when free software accedently include such 'intrusions' from known propritory counterparts of free software.

I think you should research this issue in more depth. In any case I'm setting this back to wrong, please leave it like that.

Hi quidam,

I will surely investigate this matter in depth. Anyway thank you for a detailed explanation.

I am not going to change it back, you have my word....!!

Hi quidam,

I came to know that Totem license has an exception to the GPL that legally allows one to use nonfree GStreamer plugins with Totem.

Refer
https://trisquel.info/en/issues/12558

Whether Trisquel has any non-GPL compatible or proprietary pluggins which embrace this exception is a case to be investigated.