firefox, iceweasel, burningdog, icecat, ...

sam.liddicott sam at
Thu Oct 30 08:33:46 UTC 2008

>Wed Oct 29 2008  7:38:33 pm GMT from Bjoern Schiessle to "P.B."  
>Subject: Re: firefox, iceweasel, burningdog, icecat, ...
>People who have no problem adding non-Free Software to their browser
>probably don't care that much about having a complete free operating
>system and/or browser. So they are probably not the main target group of

I enjoy the irony of the idea that free software should not allow people to
be non-free; reminding me of the US burn-the-flag debate on whether or not
flag burning should be a constitutionally supported expression of free speech
given that burning a flag sort of opposed the principles of the country and

But I agree with most posters that free software needs to become relevant to
people to whom software freedom is not yet relevant and Ithink that this will
be done by being relevant in other ways which first means solving-the-problem
at hand.

To me whether or not iceweasel should support non-free flash is another
incarnation of the older question: Should Stallman have used a non-free
compiler to develop gcc? The answer NOW is "yes" because it clearly DID lead
to more freedom, so there is no debate; but the debate is still on about
whether or not non-free flash is important. For certain: those who say it
should not be supported are those who value a C compiler more than a flash
player, but the same is not true for many of those who are yet to embrace
free software and whose entry will be delayed until it meets ALL their needs
but only if WE insist on it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list