Comments on: IceWeasel and the Focus Failure of Free Software Fans http://firsttube.com/read/iceweasel-and-the-focus-failure/ crunchy nuggets, served semi-daily Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:50:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Resuna http://firsttube.com/read/iceweasel-and-the-focus-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-1630 Resuna Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:29:52 +0000 http://firsttubecom/read/IceWeasel-and-the-Focus-Failure#comment-1630 So why isn't Debian up in arms over the Linux trademark? If it's just patches, do they ship Firefox in Debian-Obsolete... I mean Debian-Stable? So why isn’t Debian up in arms over the Linux trademark?

If it’s just patches, do they ship Firefox in Debian-Obsolete… I mean Debian-Stable?

]]> By: Cassiano http://firsttube.com/read/iceweasel-and-the-focus-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-606 Cassiano Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:57:05 +0000 http://firsttubecom/read/IceWeasel-and-the-Focus-Failure#comment-606 Ok, let me clarify what to me seems the major issue concerning the Mozilla/Debian argument.<br /> <br /> Debian is not only known as a free distro. It is also known for its stability and security.<br /> <br /> The biggest problem was with the patches. Debian tests every single package that gets into their repositories. This is to ensure the greatest level of stability and security. What happened with Mozilla's software was that Debian devs were writing patches to them. The guys at Mozilla said that these patches should be submitted to the upstream dev and would get merged into their tree so to be in the following release. Basically, a modified copy of Firefox cannot be called Firefox anymore. For Debian to continue shipping Firefox, they would have had to resignate from applying patches to the software. Any security holes would have to wait for the next Firefox release to be included in the distro. Debian said no: we want our users to have the fixes right away.<br /> <br /> And that's what makes all of us Debian users confident to use our systems. We have a level of security and stability that's hardly met by any other distro. With all of the software that comes in our distro. Ok, let me clarify what to me seems the major issue concerning the Mozilla/Debian argument.

Debian is not only known as a free distro. It is also known for its stability and security.

The biggest problem was with the patches. Debian tests every single package that gets into their repositories. This is to ensure the greatest level of stability and security. What happened with Mozilla’s software was that Debian devs were writing patches to them. The guys at Mozilla said that these patches should be submitted to the upstream dev and would get merged into their tree so to be in the following release. Basically, a modified copy of Firefox cannot be called Firefox anymore. For Debian to continue shipping Firefox, they would have had to resignate from applying patches to the software. Any security holes would have to wait for the next Firefox release to be included in the distro. Debian said no: we want our users to have the fixes right away.

And that’s what makes all of us Debian users confident to use our systems. We have a level of security and stability that’s hardly met by any other distro. With all of the software that comes in our distro.

]]> By: wolfwood72 http://firsttube.com/read/iceweasel-and-the-focus-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-526 wolfwood72 Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:49:33 +0000 http://firsttubecom/read/IceWeasel-and-the-Focus-Failure#comment-526 thats right i don't think debian should be the only one barring responsibility here it was a simple conflict of policy's and both party's couldn't change. and i don't want to here any grumbling about how this is going to hurt firefox user percentage im abide firefox user when im in my windows comp and use iceweasel when im in linux besides one more web browser is not a bad thing i mean what are you tying to prove that firefox has the best chance to clear IE out of majority of users so we should all just deal with what ever Mozilla decides is right i don't think so. whatever browser is the provides the best environment for the web should be the one to take over not to say it will work out that way but look at Google we all used to use different search engines but now most use Google because it gets the job done better . so the more browsers the better surly one will be revolutionary and yea its important to keep software free don't believe me, look at windows vista. thats right i don’t think debian should be the only one barring responsibility here it was a simple conflict of policy’s and both party’s couldn’t change. and i don’t want to here any grumbling about how this is going to hurt firefox user percentage im abide firefox user when im in my windows comp and use iceweasel when im in linux besides one more web browser is not a bad thing i mean what are you tying to prove that firefox has the best chance to clear IE out of majority of users so we should all just deal with what ever Mozilla decides is right i don’t think so. whatever browser is the provides the best environment for the web should be the one to take over not to say it will work out that way but look at Google we all used to use different search engines but now most use Google because it gets the job done better . so the more browsers the better surly one will be revolutionary and yea its important to keep software free don’t believe me, look at windows vista.

]]> By: Joshua rodman http://firsttube.com/read/iceweasel-and-the-focus-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-84 Joshua rodman Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:18:54 +0000 http://firsttubecom/read/IceWeasel-and-the-Focus-Failure#comment-84 You missed it.<br /> <br /> Debian is fine with Firefox having a proprietary logo representation under copyright, they don't mind a bit. They just don't ship copyright controlled material as part of Debian. They were happily patching out the logo file, but Mozilla Corp insisted all aspects of the brand must be present, or the trademark may not be used.<br /> <br /> It may seem hairsplitting to you, but to me it's all the difference. Debian had a clear path to rationalize the principle with the practical, but Mozilla Corp is just not interested in the principles. You missed it.

Debian is fine with Firefox having a proprietary logo representation under copyright, they don’t mind a bit. They just don’t ship copyright controlled material as part of Debian. They were happily patching out the logo file, but Mozilla Corp insisted all aspects of the brand must be present, or the trademark may not be used.

It may seem hairsplitting to you, but to me it’s all the difference. Debian had a clear path to rationalize the principle with the practical, but Mozilla Corp is just not interested in the principles.

]]> By: R. A. Hicks http://firsttube.com/read/iceweasel-and-the-focus-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-509 R. A. Hicks Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:09:36 +0000 http://firsttubecom/read/IceWeasel-and-the-Focus-Failure#comment-509 Freedom of speech has never been absolute, in the U.S. or anywhere else. For example, communicating with others for the purposes of planning a crime is conspiracy; and as is pointed out in the Wikipedia article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)#Conspiracy_in_the_United_States">Conspiracy in the U.S.</a>, no overt criminal act needs to be committed in furtherance of the conspiracy in order to satisfy the common law definition of criminal conspiracy.<br /> <br /> Regarding GWB, the right in question is really the right to (peaceful) dissent, which IMHO is as important to democracy as free elections. Elections are meaningless unless the electors have the ability to hold those elected accountable for their decisions. This is an impossible goal without the right to dissent.<br /> <br /> Regarding IceWeasel, the problem is the law, as is frequently the case, has failed to keep pace with society. The free software movement has been generally a very good thing for society but is forced to abide by laws that were written to protect intellectual property rights. Ideally, the law would change to protect the property rights of the free software movement; but given that much of Congress is for sale to the highest bidder, good luck with that idea. Freedom of speech has never been absolute, in the U.S. or anywhere else. For example, communicating with others for the purposes of planning a crime is conspiracy; and as is pointed out in the Wikipedia article Conspiracy in the U.S., no overt criminal act needs to be committed in furtherance of the conspiracy in order to satisfy the common law definition of criminal conspiracy.

Regarding GWB, the right in question is really the right to (peaceful) dissent, which IMHO is as important to democracy as free elections. Elections are meaningless unless the electors have the ability to hold those elected accountable for their decisions. This is an impossible goal without the right to dissent.

Regarding IceWeasel, the problem is the law, as is frequently the case, has failed to keep pace with society. The free software movement has been generally a very good thing for society but is forced to abide by laws that were written to protect intellectual property rights. Ideally, the law would change to protect the property rights of the free software movement; but given that much of Congress is for sale to the highest bidder, good luck with that idea.

]]> By: Redux http://firsttube.com/read/iceweasel-and-the-focus-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Redux Thu, 28 Dec 2006 23:32:01 +0000 http://firsttubecom/read/IceWeasel-and-the-Focus-Failure#comment-32 I mean... can't we just bend the first amendment a LITTLE bit to make it so it's a punishable offense to say anything bad about George Bush? That won't change most people's day to day lives, right? Speech will BASICALLY still be mostly free, as long as we adhere to that one MINOR adjustment regarding only one person... really more of a technicality than anything... nobody would even notice...<br /> <br /> -- For those living in Communist England (or elsewhere that dragons be), who didn't get the "first amendment" reference: amendment #1 in the USA Constitution is "freedom of speech". And no, we don't have it here either... :( I mean… can’t we just bend the first amendment a LITTLE bit to make it so it’s a punishable offense to say anything bad about George Bush? That won’t change most people’s day to day lives, right? Speech will BASICALLY still be mostly free, as long as we adhere to that one MINOR adjustment regarding only one person… really more of a technicality than anything… nobody would even notice…

– For those living in Communist England (or elsewhere that dragons be), who didn’t get the “first amendment” reference: amendment #1 in the USA Constitution is “freedom of speech”. And no, we don’t have it here either… :(

]]> By: mishoo http://firsttube.com/read/iceweasel-and-the-focus-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-471 mishoo Mon, 11 Dec 2006 06:00:17 +0000 http://firsttubecom/read/IceWeasel-and-the-Focus-Failure#comment-471 Good one mon, respect! ;-) Good one mon, respect! ;-)

]]> By: oscheck http://firsttube.com/read/iceweasel-and-the-focus-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-423 oscheck Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:17:26 +0000 http://firsttubecom/read/IceWeasel-and-the-Focus-Failure#comment-423 If I understand Debian's motive I should be able to make my own linux distribution and call it Debian? Afterall Free is Free? If I understand Debian’s motive I should be able to make my own linux distribution and call it Debian? Afterall Free is Free?

]]> By: Adam S http://firsttube.com/read/iceweasel-and-the-focus-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-445 Adam S Tue, 24 Oct 2006 07:52:44 +0000 http://firsttubecom/read/IceWeasel-and-the-Focus-Failure#comment-445 Now Joe, surely you aren't being serious? Of course there's no "problem" with anyone doing this. The question is the motivation. I see it as attacking a small, insignificant problem when there are big mountains ahead. <br /> <br /> For the record, deciding what is "free" is something for which I have my own definition. To me, open code by logo and naming restrictions does not disqualify software from being "open." To Debian, it does. Now Joe, surely you aren’t being serious? Of course there’s no “problem” with anyone doing this. The question is the motivation. I see it as attacking a small, insignificant problem when there are big mountains ahead.

For the record, deciding what is “free” is something for which I have my own definition. To me, open code by logo and naming restrictions does not disqualify software from being “open.” To Debian, it does.

]]> By: Joe Meece http://firsttube.com/read/iceweasel-and-the-focus-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-410 Joe Meece Tue, 24 Oct 2006 07:33:42 +0000 http://firsttubecom/read/IceWeasel-and-the-Focus-Failure#comment-410 Debians guidelines are as clear as day. They release a fully free distro. Firefox is _not_ free. I doint see whats the concern here. Debians guidelines are as clear as day. They release a fully free distro. Firefox is _not_ free. I doint see whats the concern here.

]]> By: Eugenia http://firsttube.com/read/iceweasel-and-the-focus-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-444 Eugenia Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:02:53 +0000 http://firsttubecom/read/IceWeasel-and-the-Focus-Failure#comment-444 To make myself more clear:<br /> <br /> Microsoft is omnivorous.<br /> The Mozilla folks are vegetarian.<br /> The Debian folks are vegans.<br /> And RMS is a fruitarian.<br /> <br /> These different stances can never agree with each other.<br /> <br /> I personally am omnivorous, but I can become an lacto-ovo pescetarian if I was to push myself. Meaning, I would eat dairy daily, eggs and fish once a week but would eat no animal/bird meat. I feel exactly the same about my "software freedom" stance. To make myself more clear:

Microsoft is omnivorous.
The Mozilla folks are vegetarian.
The Debian folks are vegans.
And RMS is a fruitarian.

These different stances can never agree with each other.

I personally am omnivorous, but I can become an lacto-ovo pescetarian if I was to push myself. Meaning, I would eat dairy daily, eggs and fish once a week but would eat no animal/bird meat. I feel exactly the same about my “software freedom” stance.

]]> By: Eugenia http://firsttube.com/read/iceweasel-and-the-focus-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-408 Eugenia Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:55:19 +0000 http://firsttubecom/read/IceWeasel-and-the-Focus-Failure#comment-408 >So the question is - is it THAT important to be completely free?<br /> <br /> This is like a discussion between a fruitarian and a vegan. The fruitarian only eats fruits and seeds and does not kill plants. Vegans do not kill animals to eat or dress. Both extreme. But one is always more extreme than the other. ;) >So the question is – is it THAT important to be completely free?

This is like a discussion between a fruitarian and a vegan. The fruitarian only eats fruits and seeds and does not kill plants. Vegans do not kill animals to eat or dress. Both extreme. But one is always more extreme than the other. ;)

]]>