On the Librem 5 installed with pureOS byzantium, if I activate “show incompatible applications”, I see a number of apps I am familiar with, like Linphone and Quassel, indicated as having proprietary code.
These apps are listed in the Free Software Directory and are available in distros following the FSDG like Trisquel and Parabola.
Why are these apps indicated as having proprietary code?
Isn’t the pureOS store supposed to include only free software?
Do you have flatpaks included?
If you have enabled flatpaks, then those also show up in the “Software” app. Flatpaks often are proprietary.
To my understanding (and from what I’ve seen) Purism’s repo only has free software.
Yeap PureOS not really free software, i already say many times, because they ship Firefox, Firefox it not Icecat as Free Software, but also Purism promotes the use of firmware blobs, but i know that Purism it’s between a sword and a wall of opensource user coming from ubuntu and whatever. : (
Also i know the history from Firefox y Iceweasel and Debian as Debian not free software anymore because ubuntu devs in debian.
What’s not free about Firefox?
Icon and others enablements.
I have the phone as it was shipped by Purism, used only apt to install software.
However, my main point is that apps that I know are free software are indicated as having proprietary code, although they probably don’t have any.
As far as I am aware, what is not free software in Firefox is widevine and I agree that this is why it should not be provided in PureOS repositories, unless the version in PureOS has removed widevine and the EME?
Trisquel distributes abrowser which has widevine and EME removed, the Trisquel package works fine on Debian (provided the right version is used) so could possibly be installed on PureOS.
Parabola distributes Iceweasel (also widevine and EME removed) and Icecat, Guix distributes Icecat.
I cannot entirely follow what you say here, but the Debian–Mozilla trademark dispute […] ended in 2017 when all Mozilla applications in Debian were reverted to their original names. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian–Mozilla_trademark_dispute
We have much bigger battles to fight, and need to support Mozilla and Mozilla Firefox as that is the only usable free browser available for us.
Yes, but with widevine removed. This is not a matter of trademark, widevine is proprietary software.
Ah, thanks for clarifying, I did not understand that part in carlosgonz’ mail and did not bother to look widevine up.
Is Widevine actually shipped on PureOS? I can only see OpenH264 on the L5. Following about:addons https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm#w_disable-the-google-widevine-cdm-without-uninstalling
That would make Firefox clean.
Firefox can not be shipped in Libre Software OSes, it enable DRMs and Blobs. The icon it not libre.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm explains things.
Basically, if any page is loaded that requires DRM, Firefox will ask the user to confirm it is ok to download Widevine. I haven’t tried this so I don’t know whether Firefox warns the user that this is proprietary software. In any case, this steers the user towards proprietary software, while there are video contents distributed that work without this. I read that Mozilla wasn’t happy that something like this was standardized by W3C but they still made the decision to support this, while there may be video services that don’t ask for that.
In any case, this violates the GNU Free Software Distribution Guidelines that are required to get FSF endorsement that was obtained by pureOS, so I hope the version included by pureOS has removed that.
Nevertheless, my main point was: it looks silly that pureOS store on Librem 5 (I have not used pureOs on a PC) says that software is proprietary while it isn’t, this occurs for a massive number of apps.
@oseo I think you stumbled on this same issue with the version of gnome-software package that we ship;
I checked linphone and I can reproduce the same issue as above. So no, it is not an issue of us shipping proprietary software.
PureOS only uses sources from debian main, which are free software. We do not use packages from contrib or non-free
The icon is published under the FOSS MPL licence (https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/99d80bc3f18b) so while it doesn’t grant you rights to the trademark it is free of copyright. Debian agrees that’s Libre, why do you say it isn’t?
I think it is likely some attribute set in the package itself. I built a ham radio app - available at https://hearham.com/, that shows up in Ubuntu software as “proprietary” although it is not… It’s probably some obscure debian packaging config that one must set?