Disappointing [LWN.net]

Disappointing

Posted Oct 19, 2012 17:59 UTC (Fri) by paravoid (subscriber, #32869)
In reply to: Disappointing by KaiRo
Parent article: Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for Android

I'm aware that Mozilla Addons require a license and I also do know that the Addons webpage does list the license, although in tiny letters on the side, showing no emphasis on freedom. Do note that this not the case for the in-browser addon search (Tools -> Addons -> Get Addons), which hides this information as far as I can see. Moreover, there's no way to do search only in the subset of addons that are free as in speech, in neither interfaces. Free and non-free software are equivalent in there and users will just pick what looks fancier, without anyone ever educating them about their freedoms.

You are right that I should file bug reports, however I do think that this is not an error in passing but rather a deliberate choice on Mozilla's side. Sticking to your principles has a cost and makes you less popular to average joe who doesn't care about such things (at least that's what he thinks). That's not entirely guesswork: I've pointed out the addons issues above to a Mozilla person before (granted, not *the* person responsible for it) and I was basically told "meh, wontfix". But yes, this probabl belongs on a bug tracker, you're absolutely right.

As for "it's HTML5, just do View Source", please get *your* facts straight. If there's no clear copyright license, or the copyright license is not a free software license, it's a copyright violation to even study the code (modulo rights to reverse engineer that exist in many countries), let alone modify it for your needs and redistribute it. I hope you're not suggesting to take e.g. the Twitter "app" and derive an identi.ca one from it :)

It might be unfair to judge Mozilla for the lack of free software advocacy. However, as Mozilla is moving more from just being a software author and to the software distributor realm, I think we have to adhere it to Linux distros standards and criticize them for not having a clear stance on that.

As for the "open web" vs. FL/OSS, I think moves such as the Marketplace one are problematic to me, a free software zealot. Also see my previous LWN comment on B2G:
http://lwn.net/Articles/484552/
(Gerv's response made me feel slightly better; I'm cautiously optimistic, but moves such as the Marketplace don't make feel any better)

(Log in to post comments)

Disappointing

Posted Oct 20, 2012 15:18 UTC (Sat) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link]

As for "it's HTML5, just do View Source", please get *your* facts straight. If there's no clear copyright license, or the copyright license is not a free software license, it's a copyright violation to even study the code (modulo rights to reverse engineer that exist in many countries), let alone modify it for your needs and redistribute it

Not to mention that, for performance reason as well as obfuscation, a lot of web apps will likely have passed through an optimizing Javascript compiler and thus the result will not exactly be human-readable code

Disappointing

Posted Oct 22, 2012 3:10 UTC (Mon) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]

> If there's no clear copyright license, or the copyright license is not a free software license, it's a copyright violation to even study the code

That is one of the most preposterous things I have ever heard. Perhaps you could tell us which of the exclusive rights enumerated in 17 USC 106 is implicated by merely "studying the code":

"(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."

Disappointing

Posted Oct 22, 2012 4:17 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

> Perhaps you could tell us which of the exclusive rights enumerated in 17 USC 106 is implicated by merely "studying the code":

17 USC 106 is generally not held in especially high regard by courts outside the US. Is it a right guaranteed by Berne?

Disappointing

Posted Oct 22, 2012 11:35 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

>> Perhaps you could tell us which of the exclusive rights enumerated in 17 USC 106 is implicated by merely "studying the code":

> 17 USC 106 is generally not held in especially high regard by courts outside the US. Is it a right guaranteed by Berne?

I can't believe there's any dispute here. The right to look at a copyrighted work is so obviously not exclusive to the copyright holder that your diversion is completely absurd.