Re: Vanilla Firefox recipe?

[Christopher Lemmer Webber]

(An obvious win from this also being that we will be able to have more
Guix users running, on average, a more up-to-date on security browser
more often.)

Christopher Lemmer Webber writes:

> [moving from help-guix to guix-devel]
>
> On help-guix this exchange occured when discussing trying to install
> Vanilla Firefox... two things struck me:
>
>  - Firefox's source code is itself free, but it doesn't follow the FSDG
>    (An assertion was made that Firefox was itself nonfree software,
>    but this seems like an inaccurate characterization.  I agree it
>    doesn't follow the FSDG, however.)
>  - It is probably possible, with minimal changes, to resolve that.
>
> So this page explains the problem:
>
>   
> https://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines
>
> "Problem: Recommends non-free addons and plugins; automatically downloads 
> cisco's binary h.264 codecs"
>
> I agree the latter is a problem.  The former is kind of maybe a problem,
> but mostly because it isn't clear that it's happening to the user.
>
> However, I wonder if, with a matter of just two patches, this could be
> resolved:
>
>  - Patch out the automatic download of Cisco's h.264 plugin.
>  - Add a warning banner *above* the extensions page, or simply switch it
>    to the same one that Icecat already uses.
>
> Is that all that's necessary, then, to get "vanilla Firefox" in Guix?
> It strikes me that with those two changes, the criteria would be met.
>
> (Yes, I know that IceCat also provides LibreJS and some other plugins,
> and that's nice to have, but Guix already ships several other browsers
> that do not have those plugins, so this does not seem to be a strict
> impediment and I don't think it should be either.  We could change the
> default Firefox homepage to point at one that recommends installing some
> of these plugins, if that would be helpful.)
>
>  - Chris
>
>
> Christopher Lemmer Webber writes:
>
>> I'm not sure it's really accurate to categorize asking for a vanilla
>> copy of firefox, which might not comply with the FSDG, as nonfree
>> software.  The primary issue with Firefox that makes it qualify as
>> "nonfree" is that the add-ons tool brings you to something that might
>> guide a user towards nonfree software right?  Thus I think this isn't
>> exactly correct framing, since firefox itself isn't nonfree?  There is a
>> difference if I, as a user, install Firefox as free software, and I am
>> aware of the issue with the default extensions kit, and end up
>> installing no nonfree software on my computer, right?
>>
>> Am I missing something?  What makes Firefox itself nonfree (which I
>> think is not quite the same thing as not compliant with the FSDG)?
>>
>>
>> Adonay Felipe Nogueira via writes:
>>
>>> I came late to this issue, but I think this should have been posted on
>>> development mailing list. It's not good if we use the general help list
>>> to foster non-free software like Firefox or those which are third-party
>>> package managers with no default repository explicitly commited to
>>> following the GNU FSDG.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, to ease the sides of both the thread starter and the
>>> community, I'm taking a simplification in that I'm considering the use
>>> of such non-free software for purpose of developing or improving a free
>>> replacement. That means I'm not discussing the merit of whether the
>>> question should or shouldn't have been answered the way it was.
>>>
>>> One must be remind though, that the GNU FSDG isn't only about the
>>> packages distributed (software, documentation, text fonts, etc), but
>>> also about the community, and this is one of the things that keep Debian
>>> out of the list of free system distributions.
>>>
>>> Em 12/05/2020 16:23, Efraim Flashner escreveu:
>>>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:31:02PM +0200, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Christopher Lemmer Webber <address@hidden> skribis:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone have a package definition (or channel) for a recent vanilla
>>>>>> firefox?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand the decision to prefer distributing Icecat instead in Guix
>>>>>> proper, but I need a more recent version of things... I suspect others
>>>>>> sometimes do too.  I have a feeling at least someone in the community
>>>>>> has written such a definition... would you mind sharing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>  - Chris
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a channel at
>>>>> https://forge.monarch-pass.net/warrah/warrah-nonfsdg with a package
>>>>> definition for Firefox 74.0.1. I haven't tested it though.
>>>>
>>>> Other options include using the now official flatpak copy of firefox. If
>>>> you do go that route make sure to use the '--user' flag for flatpak so
>>>> it doesn't segfault while trying to write to /var/lib/flatpak.
>>>>