beyond

Thunderbird and Firefox are developed by separate companies (both under the Mozilla Foundation). Thunderbird is funded through donations. Firefox is funded through (among other sources, such as Pocket and advertisements) the Google search deal. As far as I know it's not legally feasible (or even possible) for the Firefox money to go to Thunderbird or vice versa.

Linux is the kernel, so the userspace is irrelevant. And I'm not sure what the exact amount of Linux you can change before it is no longer Linux, but it's Linux enough to run entire desktop environments.

Disagree - making it harder to ship proprietary blob crap "for Linux" is a feature, not a bug.

I just think it's worth to keep in mind that the most widely used smartphone OS already is a Linux... especially since people who want so called "real Linux phones" end up wanting to run Android crapware on them anyway.

If you want a Linux phone that can run Android apps, they are very plentiful. You can even run so-called Linux applications including entire desktop environments. Android is very much not a "fake Linux."

(That is not to say I have no interest in non-Android Linuxes, I just don't think it's worth switching just so you can claim to run "real Linux")

Framing this as a problem specific to open source implies that proprietary applications are inherently more trustworthy. Regardless, the reason to use free software is so you can have the four freedoms, not necessarily because it is easier to audit.

Yes, pre-NT Windows actually was DOS. Windows 95 was MS-DOS 7.0.

This is strikingly similar to an account on reddit that has been posting variations of some LLM-generated screed about the supposed problem of trust in open source. I wonder what the end goal of this is.

There is always good old Thunderbird.

According to the official fediverse account of Thunderbird, they are not going to adopt the new Firefox EULA.

It's a cultural thing mainly. Things like rust and npm came out of the "Github generation" of open source developers which trend towards permissive licensing, in part thanks to Github's own anti-copyleft bias. Github's founder openly advocated to "open source almost everything" (the "almost" part being "core business value"), arguing that open source serves as a foundation upon which to build proprietary products. In this world, participating in open source is merely a way to gain PR and volunteer labor for the proprietary product.

I'm not automatically opposed to permissive licensing (nor is FSF/GNU, in fact!) but in making it the norm we put proprietary software companies in control of what ultimately becomes available in the commons.

It’s not free and open source.

I am not exactly defending this particular scheme but the source code is available under a free software license. It's only the binaries that are under a proprietary EULA.

No part of a free software license requires that binaries be made available (gratis or otherwise) or that users be allowed to submit bug reports or feature requests. It is also not against the free software movement philosophy to sell free software.

But I’m one of the few privileged users who can build from source.

There are avenues available for less-privileged users to obtain builds of free software projects (e.g. GNU/Linux distributions, F-Droid, and so on).