On 2025-03-17 at 12:18, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
> . . . And it looks like all the dire predictions of Firefox breaking
> if not updated right away, before the root cert expires, have been
> greatly exaggerated.
I read an article in the past few days which finally mentioned exactly
what it is t
I am free for a couple of hours now as well.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:18:49 -0400,
James H. H. Lampert wrote:
>
> . . . And it looks like all the dire predictions of Firefox breaking
> if not updated right away, before the root cert expires, have been
> greatly exaggerated.
>
> --
> JHHL
>
. . . And it looks like all the dire predictions of Firefox breaking if
not updated right away, before the root cert expires, have been greatly
exaggerated.
--
JHHL
On 12/03/2025 09:31, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue Mar 11, 2025 at 9:06 PM GMT, Joey Hess wrote:
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Simple answer: these (awful) terms apply to *binaries* supplied by
Mozilla,
not source. So, Debian is unaffected.
Is this Debian's official position?
No, It's Mozilla'
On Tue Mar 11, 2025 at 9:06 PM GMT, Joey Hess wrote:
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Simple answer: these (awful) terms apply to *binaries* supplied by Mozilla,
not source. So, Debian is unaffected.
Is this Debian's official position?
No, It's Mozilla's. Quoting [1],
Mozilla grants you a personal,
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Simple answer: these (awful) terms apply to *binaries* supplied by Mozilla,
> not source. So, Debian is unaffected.
Is this Debian's official position?
(Asking because it's being cited as such on social media.)
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 2025-03-09, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sat Mar 8, 2025 at 4:37 PM GMT, Joey Hess wrote:
>> Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>> Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds (and
>>> whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I hope not. But
>>> irrespectively, users
On Sat Mar 8, 2025 at 4:37 PM GMT, Joey Hess wrote:
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds (and
whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I hope not. But
irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are not bound by
Mozilla
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 05:43:32PM -, Greg wrote:
> Why wouldn't Debian's Firefox sell or share user data whereas a
> non-Debian package or binary might or would, according to the vague
> legalese of the new EULA? If Debian users are not bound, by what
> method or procedure are they exempt
Richmond writes:
> I see also in the build config for debian firefox esr it says:
> --enable-official-branding
That does not affect end users of Debian's Firefox in any way. It just
means that Debian has permission from Mozilla to use the Firefox
trademark.
--
John Hasler
j...@sugarbit.com
Elm
On 2025-03-08, Joey Hess wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds (and
>> whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I hope not. But
>> irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are not bound by
>> Mozilla's E
On 9/3/25 02:22, Richmond wrote:
Where is Iceweasel?
Over there...
..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..
Richmond writes:
> Greg writes:
>
>> On 2025-03-08, Joey Hess wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds
(and whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I
hope not. But irrespectively, users of Debia
Greg writes:
> On 2025-03-08, Joey Hess wrote:
>>
>>
>> Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>> Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds
>>> (and whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I
>>> hope not. But irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are
>>>
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds (and
> whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I hope not. But
> irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are not bound by
> Mozilla's EULA.
Have you confirmed this with a lawyer
On 3/5/25 03:46, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue Mar 4, 2025 at 10:10 PM GMT, Richmond wrote:
I looked at about:buildconfig for Firefox ESR on Debian, and it says it
is built from a Mozilla source:
Source
Built from
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr128/rev/f3783ad20bf40a11fb4b7ed08
"Jonathan Dowland" writes:
> Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds (and
> whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I hope not.
> But irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are not bound by
> Mozilla's EULA.
When upgrading the Firefox bi
On Tue Mar 4, 2025 at 10:10 PM GMT, Richmond wrote:
I looked at about:buildconfig for Firefox ESR on Debian, and it says
it
is built from a Mozilla source:
Source
Built from
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr128/rev/f3783ad20bf40a11fb4b7ed088236c1a9f7be362
So won't it be doing the s
"Jonathan Dowland" writes:
> On Sat Mar 1, 2025 at 11:50 AM GMT, Frank Guthausen wrote:
>> If this questions affects the DFSG, Debian must take a position. The
>> obvious elephant in the room is the question whether Firefox can be
>> part of the official distribution. The compatibility question b
On Tuesday, 04-03-2025 at 21:05 Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sat Mar 1, 2025 at 11:50 AM GMT, Frank Guthausen wrote:
> > If this questions affects the DFSG, Debian must take a position. The
> > obvious elephant in the room is the question whether Firefox can be
> > part of the official distribut
On Sat Mar 1, 2025 at 11:50 AM GMT, Frank Guthausen wrote:
If this questions affects the DFSG, Debian must take a position. The
obvious elephant in the room is the question whether Firefox can be
part of the official distribution. The compatibility question between
Mozilla ToS and DFSG needs to b
* On 2025 01 Mar 08:33 -0600, Greg wrote:
> On 2025-03-01, gene heskett wrote:
> > On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote:
> >> It's worth reading this too.
> >>
> >> https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
> >
> > Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, doe
On 3/1/25 09:20, Richmond wrote:
gene heskett writes:
On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote:
It's worth reading this too.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not
change it to where it only needs lots
{
"emoji": "🌷",
"version": 1
}
Op za 1 mrt 2025 om 15:33 schreef Greg :
> What about Chromium? Or let's write one ourselves!!!
> I guess that would be easier said than done.
Who else wants to take packages.debian.org/qutebrowser and morph it into a
qutebrowser.hs or better following the lead of packages.debian.org/xmonad?
On 2025-03-01, gene heskett wrote:
> On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote:
>> It's worth reading this too.
>>
>> https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
>
> Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not
> change it to where it only needs lots of salt.
eye agree wid u AJ dat dis is a secrecy nitemare and relinquishes all
proprietary ownership of information but eye welcum it as utterly funny
since information wants to be free praise be to stallman.org and allA
Excerpt from ToS:
> > You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, inclu
gene heskett writes:
> On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote:
>> It's worth reading this too.
>>
>> https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
>
> Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not
> change it to where it only needs lots of salt.
>
> The thing
On 3/1/25 7:53 AM, gene heskett wrote:
On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote:
It's worth reading this too.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not
change it to where it only needs lots of salt.
The th
On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote:
It's worth reading this too.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not
change it to where it only needs lots of salt.
The thing that irks me is that they have repla
It's worth reading this too.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 00:27:44 -0500
"Paul M. Foster" wrote:
>
> [...] I'm hoping
> for a fork (Zen?), but Brave is looking more promising.
Could GNU IceCat[1] be an option to have as .deb package?
> As for Debian, I hope they take no position on this. It really isn't
> something for Debian to c
On 2/28/25 5:58 PM, ajz3...@gmail.com wrote:
Is this real? Firefox just introduced the "Terms of Use" document, that
includes some really disturbing entries.
The Worst Firefox Update Ever
https://youtu.be/E4JOnQY_qbo
Info from Mozilla:
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/f
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 11:05:01PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> I don't believe that this applies to copies of Firefox installed from
> the Debian archive.
I'm convinced that they'll try to weasel themselves through. Given
the hyperventilation many states show these days with "AI" (they
seem to hav
I don't believe that this applies to copies of Firefox installed from
the Debian archive. I think that it is only for binaries installed from
the Mozilla site. To make it apply to the Debian package the installer
would have to pop of an "I agree" clicky. Not likely.
Some restrictions apply if y
On Saturday, 01-03-2025 at 09:58 ajz3...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is this real? Firefox just introduced the "Terms of Use" document, that
> includes some really disturbing entries.
I agree, that is disturbing.
My first initial thoughts is that this will relate to A.I. and the need for
data to train
36 matches
Mail list logo
