[Dev] Let's revert and move changes introduced by bugs #645 and #677 on Iceweasel

Jorge Araya Navarro elcorreo at deshackra.com
Mon Nov 2 04:46:30 GMT 2015

Suspicion is good enough criteria, AFAIK.

Again, dependency is not good enough reason. Dependency in a piece of hardware that requires
proprietary software to function is, on the other hand, good enough reason to replace *such*

But the server side of Firefox Hello do not affects my four freedoms. LibreJS exists because
proprietary Javascript runs in user's browsers, not because the stack of the servers visited by
those users runs the entire Parabola's black list.

El domingo 01 de noviembre del 2015 a las 1753 horas, Florian Pelz escribió:

> On 11/02/2015 12:10 AM, Isaac David wrote:
>> [nonprism] does not actually deal with SaaSS, much less it discriminates
>> networking programs that give you "choice" of service providers from
>> those which don't. It really only does what you read in the Wiki.
>> your-privacy bans perfectly free software packages known to use online
>> services which in turn are known to engage in mass surveillance; and
>> [nonprism] patches some or all of those packages so that you can use
>> them without worrying. Yet if you want to avoid SaaSS then activating
>> [nonprism] is a reasonable step in that direction because of the
>> correlation between SaaSS and mass surveillance. However, [nonprism]
>> doesn't guarantee you that even the most obscure free software client
>> program meant to be used with SaaSS will be blacklisted. There's nothing
>> a distro can do to make sure the user never connects to SaaSS; you still
>> need to think about your online practices.
> Hm… Does Firefox Hello / Telefónica engage in mass surveillance known to
> us? They certainly can, but a quick (maybe too quick) Web search does
> not show anything. What is the criterion to remove them from nonprism?
> On 11/02/2015 12:37 AM, Jorge Araya Navarro wrote:
>> More over, I don't see anything intrinsically evil in not having
>> different choices of service
>> providers (this is not a violation of any of user's software
>> freedom), so this is neither a reason to
>> ban features from free software.
> It seems quite similar to the reasons for free software and not only
> open-source in the literal sense. You depend on them.

👋 Pax et bonum.
Jorge Araya Navarro

More information about the Dev mailing list