Where are updates for Abrowser, IceCat and Icedove?
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
All of them are outdated and are exposed for security threats at the moment. Why does the maintenance of this project omits updates although security should be high priority?
Abrowser: 50.1.0+build2-0ubuntu0.14.04.1+7.0trisquel47
IceCat: 38.8.0-gnu2+7.0trisquel1
Icedove: 38.8.0-1~deb7u1.1+7.0trisquel2
Yes, IceCat and Abrowser have been updated now but I also wait for update for Icedove email client.
P.S. Abrowser could be replaced with Firefox as Debian does it nowadays.
"P.S. Abrowser could be replaced with Firefox as Debian does it nowadays."
Not really. It still doesn't come with freedom #2 intact. The Debian Project made a big oversight, IMO, in the discussion because the question of charging for copies came up. Here's the conversation on that part:
-----
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:55:26 -0500 Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
At minimum, the trademark guidelines say we can't charge for the software,
what's our stance on that?
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:32:59 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
We are building our own binaries and not using Mozilla's "unaltered binaries", so that clause (which BTW I hate and consider cause for the non-free-ness of upstream binaries) doesn't apply to us. Neither it applies to our downstream; so it isn't even a "specific to Debian" DFSG issue.
-----
Maybe that one clause doesn't apply, but there are other parts in the Mozilla trademark policy that very well may. For example: "If you compile Mozilla unmodified source code (including code and config files in the installer) and do not charge for it, you do not need additional permission from Mozilla to use the relevant Mozilla Mark(s) for your compiled version."
And so, it doesn't matter if the Debian project is using official Mozilla binaries or compiling from source or not. IMO this was a fatal oversight that Stefano made.
The Debian Project doesn't currently charge for copies. It would be interesting to see what Mozilla would do it they started. Or what they would do if someone else were distributing copies of Debian (which included Debian's Firefox) for a charge.
"Mozilla Thunderbird Email Client Finally Makes Its Way Back into Debian's Repos
After a long wait, Debian developer Christoph Goehre was proud to announce a couple of days ago that the Mozilla Thunderbird email and news client officially landed in the repositories of Debian GNU/Linux, de-branding Icedove."
Yeah, the Debian Project got special permission. For most other people it remains non-free because you do not have freedom #2 (the freedom to redistribute exact copies commercially.) It is unclear to me what Mozilla would do if the Debian Project were to try this (distribute commercially.) Or if someone else were to try redistributing Debian (which would necessarily include Thunderbird) in that way.
The MPL 1.0 was uncompatible with the DFSG and the GNU GPL licenses. With the usage of the MPL 2.0, Firefox and Thunderbird are not longer banned form Debian, plus the fact that the usage of non-profit purposes makes it ideal for distribute it.
Check this discussion related with the inclusion of Mozilla-related logos on this Wikicommons discussion board:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Mozilla_Firefox_3.5_logo_256.png
PS: Even on Wikicommons happened the same discussion on the Firefox 2013 logo. See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mozilla_Firefox_logo_2013.svg
"The MPL 1.0 was uncompatible with the DFSG and the GNU GPL licenses."
I think you have a misunderstanding here on several different levels at the same time. It wasn't the MPL that made it non-free because the MPL was a free software license in both versions 1 and 2. Whether a license grants the FSF's 4 freedoms and whether a license is compatible with the GPL are separate questions. Whether a license is compatible with Debian's criteria is yet a third question (since Debian has made up different criteria, following that different criteria can sometimes result in different decisions compared to the FSF.) A license can still qualify as free software under the FSF's criteria and also be incompatible with the GPL at the same time. Indeed, there is a whole list of licenses that are free software but also GPL-incompatible at the same time at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
Also, I find no notes about MPL 1.0 not being compatible with Debian's own guidelines. Quite the contrary, but an approval from 2007 (which would have been for version 1.0 because version 2.0 did not exist at that time): https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Mozilla_Public_License_.28MPL.29
It wasn't the MPL that made it non-free by FSF's standards: It's the non-commercial aspect that did.
"usage of non-profit purposes makes it ideal"
On the contrary - It makes the software non-free. One of the key tenets in free software (and again I am working from FSF standards) is that commercial and non-commercial uses are treated entire equally. Indeed, if you go back to "What is free software?" at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html you've got: "'Free software' does not mean 'noncommercial'. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution." So, this means that programs where this is not allowed are non-free by FSF standards.
Continuing on there is even a small blurb about this very situation at https://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.en.html#f2 where is asks and then answers "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."
Finally, we also have even more confirmation from the FSF in the form of an email from Brett Smith, License Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2011-08/msg00014.html
So it wasn't the MPL that made it non-free. Mozilla has not changed anything in regards to commercial usage so the crux of the problem still remains that the general public still does not get commercial permission, making the software (still) non-free to this day.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios