icecat or/and firefox?

Ian Malone ibmalone at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 08:48:40 UTC 2014


On 28 January 2014 07:05, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 22:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 11:52 +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
>> > On 27 January 2014 05:36, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
>> > > On 01/27/2014 05:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Hi,
>> > >>
>> > >> Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a "more free"
>> > >> version firefox.
>> >
>> > I'd argue it's *less* free since it seeks to restrict what you can do:
>>
>> Congratulations! You are the millionth person to regurgitate this
>> entirely fruitless argument on the internet.
>>
>> You win no prize.
>
> I should note, I take no position. I just have seen enough instances of
> the "permissive is more free!" "NO, copyleft is more free!" argument
> for:
>
> a) today
> b) this week
> c) a lifetime
> d) the lifetime of the universe

Since we're doing, "and another thing", I wasn't asking for a prize. I
was expanding on the assertion icecat is 'more free'. As someone who's
been using Fedora for quite some time you might conclude I have some
sympathy for the argument, but I notice fedora does not prevent me
adding third party repositories or installing RPMs that have licenses
it disagrees with. Also, given the existence of things like iceweasel
the reader might have concluded 'more free' in this context meant free
of trademarks.

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk


More information about the devel mailing list