No License file in extension, what does that mean?

[htuyar]

I'm considering to fork the "Digger" extension (caa:addon/digger). It seems easy enough for a beginner like me. The extension doesn't include a license file or any other license information I could find. I also couldn't find a repo or a working contact info. There is a fork called "Digger Reloaded" (caa:addon/digger-fan-update) with an MPL license but I'm not sure whether this was approved by the original author. On the other hand, the original extension claims to be itself based on the "Diggler" extension (caa:addon/118) which also doesn't include a license file but the javascript file that does the work contains an "MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1" license notice. The js files in diggler and digger are not really similar. All this makes me hesitant about the license situation. Any suggestions?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Stand by.

[coffeebreak]

MPL seems right.

According to CAA and "Wayback", Digger's homepage (while it existed) was clav.mozdev.org.
That page's "Wayback" copy says MPL:

This site is the home of several extensions for Firefox and Thunderbird, all written by Stephen Clavering (a.k.a. 'clav').

All of them are free and open-source, currently available under the terms of the Mozilla Public License.

Diggler from which it was forked, was also home-based on mozdev ("Wayback": diggler.mozdev.org) and seemed to rely on mozdev's default Copyright Policy which IIUC was: MPL when not otherwise stated.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Well mozdev doesn't exist anymore and the original developer may not have read the terms of the site or understood them and the default legal stance is copyright, all rights reserved unless otherwise stated by the author.

In good faith, we must apply the default legal stance despite what a defunct site's hosting policy says.

So I deem it copyright, all rights reserved until direct evidence of the creator's intent is established or they them selves make a verifiable statement on the matter.

[htuyar]

IIUC what you're saying applies to Diggler, right? Digger (the one I intend to fork) is explicitly stated as MPL as written on the wayback page coffeebreak has linked to. Is the problem that the wayback page is not sufficient proof, or is it that digger's copyright claim itself is not valid due to diggler's copyright on which it is based on? Or is it something else I'm missing?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

If that is what it says then that is fine but mozdev's own sitewide policy isn't enough but the dev says all his stuff is mpl then it is.

Do note it may be MPL 1.1.

[ron_1]

Why don't you fork the much simpler Close Tabs to the Left which is just a basic bootstrap style extension?

I downloaded this extension and changed FF's ID to Pale Moon's, and changed the min/max version. It works. I just did a search to see what else should be done and/or what should be done next, but the forum post I thought existed evidently doesn't.

[Falna]

what else should be done and/or what should be done

Try Porting extensions and how to be the very best - Pale Moon forum

[htuyar]

If that is what it says then that is fine but mozdev's own sitewide policy isn't enough but the dev says all his stuff is mpl then it is.

Do note it may be MPL 1.1.

I've submitted the forked extension "URL Clipper" for review. I hope I did everything right. I first named the fork "URL Cutter" and submitted it but then I realized that "URL Clipper" would be a better name. But I couldn't find a way to remove the first submission on the Phoebus panel. Sorry about the inconvenience.