Firefox

parent

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

I personally would have switched to LibreWolf, but they don't have a builtin password manager. And its a bit too restrictive too. I guess Waterfox would be a better alternative, but don't know how fast they update when Firefox updates.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] kill_dash_nine@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 week ago (1 child)

Just curious - why is the built in password manager a deal breaker? I’ve always used a 3rd party solution because I am looking for the ultimate in password manager portability because I use different browsers for work and personal.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago

Its the most easy way for me and I don't want to deal with a third party tool for every day use. I use a third party password manager, but it is annoying in daily usage for me. I use it to store all passwords, so it has its use.

parent

[–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It's obviously still open source or the various downstream forks of it wouldn't be able to exist.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It's why I differentiated the Firefox executable vs Firefox the application code.

Firefox the application code is still open source. The executable binary is not.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 1 point 1 week ago

How would distribute the open source of a binary?

parent

[–] sus@programming.dev -3 points 1 week ago

That's true, but it just seems like a silly distinction cooked up by some overly paranoid lawyer working for firefox, that has no practical effect.

parent

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago (7 children)

A gentle reminder that Firefox executable is no longer open source. It’s source available.

What does that mean? What do you mean by the executable is not Open Source? Firefox project is hosted online and can be used to build Firefox. Or do you suggest that Firefox builds include binary blobs?

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Mozilla follows the same model is Microsoft Code with Firefox that the source code is FOSS but it's bineries are not.

Firefox, the executable application, is not open source and is considered "source available" because the Terms of Service contains exclusions that are against the tenants of freedoms that must exist in open source software.

Firefox, the source code, is still licensed via Mozilla Public License and is open source. If you compile it yourself, you must call it something other than Firefox.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] nxn@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

Firefox, its logo, etc are trademarked and therefore restrictions apply when re-distributing, and that has been the case for as long as I remember. There's nothing stopping you from compiling it yourself, calling it Firefox, or using their branding, as long as you don't redistribute your build and modifications to others while still using their branding.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

Ah, I see he was talking about the branding and trademark. Yeah, that has nothing to do with Open Source.

parent

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I don't think that is how Open Source works. Terms of Service in the build doesn't change Firefox being Open Source. If the Source code is open Source, then so is the Firefox build, if nothing else is added that is not Open Source. Also according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License the license is compatible with GPL v2 and Debian FSG, is approved by FSF and OSI.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If the Source code is open Source, then so is the Firefox build

If that's the case, Mozilla wouldn't have spent so much publicity and gotton so much shit a year+ ago for removing the MPL from their executable and developing their TOS.

And even if it did, their TOS contains provisions that they can use your telemetry for any reason and they initially said they wouldn't use it to train AI and then they admitted that they use it to train AI. So even you give them the broadest interpretation of OSS, there are still reasons not to use Firefox executable and use an alternative instead.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 3 points 1 week ago

I don't recall anything about the MPL being removed from the executable. It's also absolutely possible (and has frequently happened) to get a lot of publicity about something minor or irrelevant.

parent

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

That is not the broadest interpretation of OSS, if it is GPLv2 compatible and the FSF and OSI approve it to be Open Source conform. Collecting telemetry has nothing to do with a project being Open Source or not.

Your arguments are baseless, unless you can point to what you exactly mean. Can you point to something specific in the license that I can check? Does the Firefox contain anything proprietary? How is the MPL removed, if that is the license of the project? You need to be specific.