←back to thread

Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

(wiki.mozilla.org)
288 points fernandotakai | 9 comments | 11 Aug 15 03:51 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
kragen ◴[11 Aug 15 06:17 UTC] No.10039371[source]▶
This is deeply disappointing.

Two details: the extensions need to be signed by Mozilla, and only US English speakers will be allowed to disable this requirement.

The point of free software is that users, individually and collectively, are free to modify it as they wish, without requiring approval from third parties. (And of course to use, copy, and redistribute.) This is a sharp turn away from the free-software ethos that made Firefox possible in the first place.

I understand the issue of users being tricked into downloading and installing malicious extensions. If you let someone program, they will be able to paste malicious code. I just don’t think that taking away users’ ability to modify their own browsers is an acceptable solution to that.

If this disturbing move sticks, Mozilla will become an increasingly tempting target for whatever group wants to control what software you can install on your own computer — whether that’s Sony Pictures, the NSA, or Amazon.

The old free software movement has died. We need a new free software movement.

replies(9): >>10039538 #>>10039732 #>>10039770 #>>10040303 #>>10040371 #>>10040382 #>>10040490 #>>10041316 #>>10042478 #
1. phpmal ◴[11 Aug 15 12:10 UTC] No.10040371[source]▶
Mozilla have been doing odd things in recent years, almost like they are transitioning into an authoritarian movement. Want to use unsanctioned extensions? No, go away. Want to use non-secure HTTP? Sure, but we will take away your features. Want to work for them but have unapproved views? Fired. All this is from viewing them as an outsider, so you never know, but something is different.
replies(2): >>10040473 #>>10040606 #
2. TazeTSchnitzel ◴[11 Aug 15 12:30 UTC] No.10040473[source]▶
Mozilla hasn't fired anyone for their views.

And caring about users' security is to be commended.

replies(1): >>10040584 #
3. ikeboy ◴[11 Aug 15 12:51 UTC] No.10040584[source]▶
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas...
replies(2): >>10040740 #>>10041015 #
4. coldpie ◴[11 Aug 15 12:57 UTC] No.10040606[source]▶
"Unapproved views"? Would you oppose firing someone for openly expressing white supremacy?
replies(1): >>10040853 #
5. toxican ◴[11 Aug 15 13:15 UTC] No.10040740{3}[source]▶
Fired for his views, or fired because of the bad press as a result of his views? I think there's enough of a difference to warrant the distinction.
6. ikeboy ◴[11 Aug 15 13:28 UTC] No.10040853[source]▶
For expressing it while not on the job, no, they should not be fired.
replies(1): >>10040996 #
7. coldpie ◴[11 Aug 15 13:48 UTC] No.10040996{3}[source]▶
Fair enough, I guess. I don't agree.
8. Karunamon ◴[11 Aug 15 13:51 UTC] No.10041015{3}[source]▶
The article characterizing his resignation as forced or him being fired does not make it true.
replies(1): >>10041110 #
9. ikeboy ◴[11 Aug 15 14:04 UTC] No.10041110{4}[source]▶
There was a large outcry, then he resigned. His resignation can be directly traced to his views. Whether he was technically fired or "decided" to resign seems largely irrelevant.