Firefox ESR supports installation of addons, and promotes in several ways the Mozilla addons service, which features both free and non-free add-ons.
Previous releases of the Firefox ESR fork PureBrowser (releases based on Debian Iceweasel) linked at some places to the FSF addon web page https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/addons.html
Firefox ESR should not promote external external addons, to avoid implcitly promoting non-free code, and to avoid leaking user data to third-parties.
Also, check the link on the Purebrowser Start Page; it links to the same Firefox add-ons site.
Thanks for reporting these things.
Please file each issue separately - that is easier to track (and also easy to merge later if not needing separation).
If Firefox is also installed on the system, the PureBrowser FSF add-ons pages becomes the normal Firefox add-ons page instead.
What URL(s) are you talking about?
I believe there is no "PureBrowser FSF add-ons pages" since (at least) purebrowser 52.5.0esr-1pureos2 (which was packaged in december but I don't know when entered green).
Could it be that your last experience of such pages was from an older purebrowser or perhaps from cache or a bookmark unrelated to purebrowser itself?
If you go to the hamburger menu and then add ons, you'll see the attached picture. In the past this was directed to a FSF add on page. After loading up the most recent build on a test machine without Firefox installed, the normal Firefox add-ons page is shown within PureBrowser. So the original issue remains despite my being incorrect as to the cause.
Tested PureBrowser 52.9.0 with a fresh profile per https://tracker.pureos.net/T524
The start page contains the text "It's easy to customize your Firefox exactly the way you want it. Choose from thousands of add-ons." The second sentence is a link to https://addons.mozilla.org (AMO) which includes non-libre add-ons.
This text could be removed completely, and replaced if/when https://tracker.pureos.net/T305 is resolved.
(This is in addition to the about:addons issue mentioned by @james.rufer - not sure if I should log it as a separate issue?)
@james.rufer yes, I did not mean to imply that this issue is not still open (the status in this very issue tracker is "open"). I only meant to ensure that if you had some additional information, that I then did in fact understand what that was.
this is a meta-issue tracking multiple issues, and as such is not in itself a Freedom issue (that is identified for each individual unbundled issue).