Richmond <dnomh...@gmx.com> writes: > Greg <curtys...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 2025-03-08, Joey Hess <i...@joeyh.name> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Jonathan Dowland wrote: >>>> Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds >>>> (and whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I >>>> hope not. But irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are >>>> not bound by Mozilla's EULA. >>> >>> Have you confirmed this with a lawyer? >> >> What? Why wouldn't Debian's Firefox sell or share user data whereas a >> non-Debian package or binary might or would, according to the vague >> legalese of the new EULA? If Debian users are not bound, by what >> method or procedure are they exempted? > > The original remark was that the licence applied to binaries. So if you > compile the source, then the binary is your own, and not Mozilla's. But > what if the two are identical? > > This reminds me of Palemoon, which although is open source, and > originally forked from firefox, has a licence on its binaries. So if you > don't want to be bound by that, you have to get the source without the > Palemoon trademark and compile it yourself.
I see also in the build config for debian firefox esr it says: --enable-official-branding Probably this should be disable. Where is Iceweasel?
