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

Josh Branning lovell.joshyyy at gmail.com
Wed Nov 4 20:14:06 GMT 2015

You are looking at firefox hello, and thinking "that's free software", 
whereas I am looking at firefox hello, loop-server and tokbox and 
thinking "that's non-free software".

A system can be useless if it's missing a part, and without TokBox, 
firefox hello is nothing. Therefore, I don't feel there is much of an 
argument to be had. Firefox hello is non-free or semi-free software.

TokBox does not grant it's users the four freedoms. And requiring 
someone to set up a loop-server so that you can use firefox hello, would 
get rid of the person who is running that server's freedoms.

Personally, I am glad this has been removed from Iceweasel, it means 
nobody loses their freedom.

On 04/11/15 19:33, Jorge Araya Navarro wrote:
> How does a "nonfree API" can affect my four freedoms if I don't run/execute the stack (OpenTok plus
> whatever) on my machine? what does "nonfree API" means anyway?! It means "something that affect your
> software freedom[1] despite the fact that someone else is running that software for you on other
> machine that isn't yours"?
> (am I making my argument clear at least?)
> [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> El miércoles 04 de noviembre del 2015 a las 1211 horas, Josh Branning escribió:
>> I mean it's proprietary (or semi-free) software as a service; that only
>> works with proprietary software. The loop-server uses a non-free API.
>> On 04/11/15 18:03, Jorge Araya Navarro wrote:
>>> You mean, PaaS. PaaS != SaaSS. I cannot find anything on gnu.org or fsf.org regarding PaaS as
>>> something unacceptably evil in regard to user's four freedoms. One could argue that from the privacy
>>> point of view is good enough reasons to have a Nonprism version of Iceweasel with Firefox Hello disabled.
>>> Besides, it seems that everything one have to do is to change the WebRTC backend and adapt loop
>>> server's code and you are done, I bet Mozilla is accepting patches for allowing this.
>>> In any case, I don't think this as a reason to disable Firefox Hello feature, outside of Nonprism.
>>> El martes 03 de noviembre del 2015 a las 1943 horas, Josh Branning escribió:
>>>> On 04/11/15 00:17, Jorge Araya Navarro wrote:
>>>>> This is also for Luke: Firefox's Hello feature works in a client-server architecture fashion (Like
>>>>> the SIP or XMPP protocol, but that doesn't mean that we should ban Linphone or any Jabber client
>>>>> because they relay in a SaaSS services (wat?!)), and I see hard to think that because I cannot
>>>>> "switch" to another provider for Hello it means that I have lost any of my four freedoms.
>>>>> BTW, the code of the backend is here[1], who wants to convince the FSF or the SFC to mount a Loop (Hello) server?
>>>>> [1]: https://github.com/mozilla-services/loop-server
>>>>> El lunes 02 de noviembre del 2015 a las 1538 horas, Josh Branning escribió:
>>>>>> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Dev mailing list
>>>>>> Dev at lists.parabola.nu
>>>>>> https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>>> '  How do I run it?
>>>> '  Be sure to edit the content of config/dev.json. You'll especially
>>>> need to specify your TokBox credentials." [1]
>>>> ' TokBox is a PaaS (Platform as a Service) company that provides hosted
>>>> infrastructure, APIs and tools required to deliver enterprise-grade
>>>> WebRTC capabilities. It does so primarily through its proprietary
>>>> OpenTok video platform for commercial application. [2]
>>>> Therefore, by the looks of things, not only is is SaaS, but it's
>>>> proprietary SaaS.
>>>> [1] https://github.com/mozilla-services/loop-server
>>>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokbox

More information about the Dev mailing list