Le 03/01/2016 02:27, Magnus Therning a écrit : > Leonid Isaev writes: > >> On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 05:34:51PM -0600, Doug Newgard wrote: >>> Just expanding on your point. >> Ah, OK, sorry :) >> >> Also, perhaps one should note that "walled garden" discussions (albeit >> justified) belong at Mozilla's bug tracker, not Arch's. > Yes, and no. It should absolutely be brought up there first, but if > Mozilla refuses to budge then it should be discussed here. It would be > silly to *not* take advantage of the freedoms FLOSS gives us if upstream > is deemed to be heading in the wrong way. > > /M Of course, but then I think the appropriate use of our freedom is forking (even if it’s just to remove that function and maintain a patch that does so¹), else we’re moving far away of the official package (given this will require to disable branding or patch a lot, we couldn’t even name it Firefox anymore I think). Bruno ¹: If you look at Iceweasel they are mostly maintaining patches removing unwanted functions from Firefox, and add new patches for the same reasons from time to time, but still pull from Firefox. By the way, they might remove that function since it limits user freedom. Maybe you could ask them about that and go Iceweasel if Firefox does not suits your needs anymore. ;)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
