No License file in extension, what does that mean?

ron_1 · Unread post by **ron_1** » 2021-05-03, 14:15

I downloaded an old extension but there is no "LICENSE" file inside of it. Does that mean it's totally free to do whatever with it? Sorry if this is dumb, but when it comes to modifying/working with/forking extensions, I am dumb. I'm trying to learn on what I think is an easy, simple extension. BTW, I got it from the link below, and it's Close Tabs to the Right (the two newest ones). Yeah, I know PM has this built in. What I want to do is change it to "Close Tabs to the Left," if nobody now steals my thunder.

http://web.archive.org/web/20181010210723/https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/close-tabs-to-the-right/versions/?page=1#version-0.1.9.1-signed.1-signed

絵虎 · Unread post by **jobbautista9** » 2021-05-03, 14:21

The one by yukihr, right? It's in the CAA. It's MIT-licensed.

New Tobin Paradigm · Unread post by **New Tobin Paradigm** » 2021-05-03, 14:23

ron_1 · Unread post by **ron_1** » 2021-05-03, 14:30

New Tobin Paradigm wrote: ↑
2021-05-03, 14:23
If there is no way to find out license detals for something the legal assumption is to consider it copyright, all rights reserved. Until and unless it can be proven otherwise.

Yeah, I can understand this.

jobbautista9 wrote: ↑
2021-05-03, 14:21
The one by yukihr, right? It's in the CAA. It's MIT-licensed.

How and where did you find out? I looked up MIT-licensed and it seems from what I've read it would be okay to fork. If I can verify it myself.

Unread post by **moonbat** » 2021-05-03, 15:24

MIT,GPL,LGPL,MPL,BSD,Apache are all fork friendly as long as you republish the code. You have to watch out for missing licenses or just a 'copyright' or 'all rights reserved', which is usually the case for extensions made by companies for their websites/services.

coffeebreak · Unread post by **coffeebreak** » 2021-05-03, 15:54

ron_1 wrote: ↑
2021-05-03, 14:30
How and where did you find out?

AMO put license information in a right-hand side bar on each extension's main page, with a link to the relevant license.
Wayback's copy of course still has that, as does the CAA page which includes license info whenever available.

screenshots:

Unread post by **Moonchild** » 2021-05-03, 15:56

You can then assume in good faith that the original author indicated that license when uploading the extension, and should be assumed correct.
If you do publish it yourself you should include a license file to take away any ambiguity from its distribution.

New Tobin Paradigm · Unread post by **New Tobin Paradigm** » 2021-05-03, 16:14

CAA says MIT/X11 License.

ron_1 · Unread post by **ron_1** » 2021-05-03, 18:34

Inside of the META-INF folder there is a file called "mozilla.rsa" that doesn't open with a text editor. Is this a necessary file, and if so, does it need editing, and if so, how, since it can't be opened with my text editor (Pluma)?

The other two files in that folder, "manifest.mf" and "mozilla.sf" can both be opened and it just lists a bunch of MD5-Digests and SHA1-Digests. Can anybody explain what the contents of this META-INF folder actually does? I'm assuming that META-INF stands for "metadata information."

Falna · Unread post by **Falna** » 2021-05-03, 19:09

ron_1 wrote: ↑
2021-05-03, 18:34
Can anybody explain what the contents of this META-INF folder actually does?

It's used in Firefox for the file's digital signature. It's not required by Pale Moon, so delete the META-INF folder completely.

ron_1 · Unread post by **ron_1** » 2021-05-03, 19:48

Okay, my initial attempt has failed; I keep getting the message that the extension could not be installed because it appears to be corrupt. Should I post the xpi file here so somebody can see what I did wrong?

New Tobin Paradigm · Unread post by **New Tobin Paradigm** » 2021-05-03, 19:54

Remove the jar signing first off then make sure your install manifest is correct.

Baloo · Unread post by **Baloo** » 2021-05-03, 21:31

moonbat wrote: ↑
2021-05-03, 15:24
MIT,GPL,LGPL,MPL,BSD,Apache are all fork friendly as long as you republish the code. You have to watch out for missing licenses or just a 'copyright' or 'all rights reserved', which is usually the case for extensions made by companies for their websites/services.

Under Current copyright law, a work that qualifies for copyright doesn't even need a copyright disclaimer to be covered.

ron_1 · Unread post by **ron_1** » 2021-05-04, 02:33

New Tobin Paradigm wrote: ↑
2021-05-03, 19:54
Remove the jar signing first off then make sure your install manifest is correct.

Okay, I really don't know what I'm doing. I looked over everything and found that I did not replace Firefox's ID with Pale Moon's ID. So I corrected that. Then I noticed I hadn't touched the min max version, so I corrected that (by changing the max number to 29.9). I also removed any/every reference to the original author and his website in the install file. Then I researched "jar signing" but the only thing I could find was concerning .jar files. Like I said, I am dumb about this kind of thing. Now where should I go from here?

New Tobin Paradigm · Unread post by **New Tobin Paradigm** » 2021-05-04, 02:39

Learn.

ron_1 · Unread post by **ron_1** » 2021-05-04, 02:43

Well I've looked over everything in all the folders, each and every file. I guess I'll look again, but I feel like I'm up against a 100 foot brick wall.

New Tobin Paradigm · Unread post by **New Tobin Paradigm** » 2021-05-04, 02:53

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

Of course, if you are having THIS much trouble then maybe you need to wait until you learn more before committing to extension development.

ron_1 · Unread post by **ron_1** » 2021-05-04, 02:57

New Tobin Paradigm wrote: ↑
2021-05-04, 02:53
Why don't you fork the much simpler Close Tabs to the Left which is just a basic bootstrap style extension?

I'll have a look at this.

Figueroa · Unread post by **Figueroa** » 2021-05-04, 04:03

ron_1 » 2021-05-03, 19:33
I looked over everything and found that I did not replace Firefox's ID with Pale Moon's ID.

Is it preferable to add Pale Moon's GUID block or to do a replacement and get rid of the Firefox block?

So far, I have just been editing install.rdf for my own use, so as far as that goes, it doesn't make any difference. But, if I did want to go to the next step and get an extension in shape to distribute, what is the recommendation for editing that file?

New Tobin Paradigm · Unread post by **New Tobin Paradigm** » 2021-05-04, 04:20

Basilisk uses Firefox's ID you should only include it if Basilisk is a valid targetApplication for your extension.

Pale Moon forum

No License file in extension, what does that mean?

No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?

Re: No License file in extension, what does that mean?