Re: Pale Moon

[Craig Topham]

On 11/29/22 15:36, Jason Self wrote:
> I think Pale Moon is not a good candidate for the Directory, and this
> is why. I don't intend for this to be an all-exhaustive list for all
> of the concerns about the redistribution license when someone is
> exercising Freedom #2; only to show that software freedom problems
> exist with it.
>
> Pale Moon has a similiar trademark problem with Firefox [0]:
> > There is NO CHARGE for the download or distribution of the browser
> > package.
>
> As explained in the Free Software Definition, all four freedoms must
> be available on both a commercial and non-commercial basis. This
> serves to limit Freedom 2 to gratis distribution only, making the
> software nonfree. The FSF has previously communicated that such a
> thing in a trademark policy makes it nonfree [1]. Perhaps someone
> could host a rebranded verion of Pale Moon that doesn't have this
> problem, much like how GNU IceCat solves the problem for Firefox, but
> Pale Moon itself seems ineligible for being in the Free Software
> Directory.
>
> In addition:
>
> 3a seems to contain restrictions on exactly how Pale Moon can be
> distributed (can't be part of AppImage, flatpak, or SNAP). With free
> software, people should be able to package programs for use with
> any kind of package management system.
>
> #4 on the prohibition of "download managers" might be able to be
> interpreted as not allowing other package managers like APT or
> RPM too since they also function as a way to download software.
>
> Finally:
>
> * We reserve the right to withdraw permission for the use of official
>    branding and/or redistribution of officially-branded binaries
>    either as a whole or for specific target environments at any time,
>    with or without stated reason.
>
> This affects someone's ability to exercise Freedom #2 where the
> ability to share sharing exact copies can be terminated at any time
> and for any reason. This seems to go against this part of the Free
> Software Definition that: "In order for these freedoms to be real,
> they must be permanent and irrevocable as long as you do nothing
> wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the
> license, or retroactively add restrictions to its terms, without your
> doing anything wrong to give cause, the software is not free."
>
> If Freedom #2 can be revoked at their will the software should not be
> considered free.
>
> 0: https://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml
> 1:
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2011-08/msg00014.html

Thank you jxself, this is insightful and worth exploring. As I read the 
redistribution license it seems to be about protecting their trademarks 
and not prohibiting Freedom #2 or prohibiting the right to sell the 
software _IF_ the trademarked branding is not included.

["This license covers redistribution of officially supplied binaries and 
some policies regarding binaries built from source with official 
branding,"][0]

[0]: https://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml

The officially supplied binaries would contain the trademarked branding 
as would the binaries built from source with official branding.

I haven't compiled from source, but it seems to be [available][1]. If 
one downloads that source, removes the trademarked branding, then there 
is no limitation with what one can do with that source, it is free.

[1]: https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/Pale-Moon

AFAIK there is no problem with a group protecting their trademarks while 
distributing free software. It can be done incorrectly where freedoms 
are affected, but I don't think it is the case here with Pale Moon.

I am open to discussion and await your reply. For the time being, David 
Hedlund set the Pale Moon entry to under review until we can sort this out.

~Craig