Cutyfox URL Shortener Fork

[Figueroa]

caa:addon/cutyfox-url-shortener-googl-is

I have been using Cutyfox to shorten URLs. I had to do the GUID edit trick to make it work, but that was it. However, there are a couple of bugs with the extension:
1. It gives you 4 services to choose from: bit.ly, is.gd, goo,gl, mcaf.ee. But, the last two have been shut down. Plus, if you selected one of them in the options and then tried to use them, it would hang the extension. The only way to get it functional again was to restart Pale Moon.

2. The extension also has what it calls "Plus Shorteners" for Flickr, Youtube, and Amazon. The way those are supposed to work if you turned on that option, is that if you are at one of those sites, instead of using your preferred shortening service, it would edit the link internally to match with those sites' built-in redirect and support for shortened urls. But, only Flickr worked. The other two would just use the service you selected instead of youtu.be or amzn.com. But, at least the extension wouldn't lockup on this bug, it just doesn't give the desired result.

So, anyway, I decided to try to fix the bugs and I have managed to fix them both. I removed the dead services from the possible choices in the dropdown menu and fixed the parsing algorithms for Youtube and Amazon (they assumed http instead of https). I am happy with how the extension works now and would be interested in doing a full on fork. But, before I do anymore work on it, I want to make sure it is an option for this site.

I am unclear what the rules are regarding so-called service extensions. This extension does rely on url shortening services to operate. However, I see that there is an extension on the site now - Image Search Options - that does what seems to me to be comparable. It does a reverse image search on sites like Google and Tin Eye.

To be clear, I am happy that Image Search Options is available. I have it installed and use it frequently. But, it seems to me, that if that one is ok, then a fork of Cutyfox should be good too. But, if the answer is going to be no, I don't want to waste time changing the icons and otherwise prettying it up for distribution.

[Michaell]

bitly is being heavily used (often deceptively) by spammers including the pr0n kind so those links are nearly worthless to good people.

Tinyurl is the first/oldest one I can recall and about the only I'd maybe use these days.

I can't help with your question about being allowed, but why do you need an extension when you can just go to their site?

[Figueroa]

Why would you want to copy the url of the site you are at, then go to some other site and paste it in and copy that link? With the extension, there is an icon you click and it automatically converts the url and puts it on your clipboard.

"good people"
LOL

[moonbat]

I am unclear what the rules are regarding so-called service extensions.

They are not allowed to be published on the PM addons site by anyone other than the owners of the relevant services because it would violate the TOS of the services in question. You may modify it for your own personal (again, you may technically be forbidden to do even that by the license) but you should not distribute it, whether through the addons site or elsewhere, least of all as an attachment here.

[Figueroa]

They are not allowed to be published on the PM addons site by anyone other than the owners of the relevant services because it would violate the TOS of the services in question.

So how is Image Search Options different?

[moonbat]

They are as straightforward as using a search plugin, if your URL shortener works the same way and does not forbid using any interface other than what they provide in the TOS, then it should be fine provided you're willing to take on the commitment to maintain it and update it when the site eventually breaks and not merely updating the application ID for appearances' sake.

[Figueroa]

The terms of service for the two remaining shorteners are here:
https://bitly.com/pages/terms-of-service
https://is.gd/terms.php

I'm no lawyer, but it looks to me that the main things they are concerned about are spam and other malicious uses. I don't see anything that would preclude someone from using their APIs through a browser extension rather than using their websites.

[moonbat]

Then there's just the matter of commitment to maintaining it given how frequently websites just change for the sake of change to implement the latest shiny draft bullshit in Chrome.

[Michaell]

Are you in charge of the add-ons site now, Moonbat? There is nothing in the licensing that requires a commitment. And most software is not guaranteed to be updated (unless there's a contract). Maybe what we need is a way for the community to contribute fixes when breakage occurs. I recall Moonchild did say something in his new direction post about leaving extension maintenance (or policing or something like that) up to the community. As far as I know, it was just the site code developer insisting on commitment. The important thing is getting extensions fixed; so lets not create unnecessary hurdles.

[moonbat]

The commitment I referred to was on the part of the person wanting to publish it to the addons site. Service extensions are discouraged for this reason - they break far more frequently than regular extensions that aren't dependent on external websites and there is no point in forking it if one isn't going to be around to promptly fix issues. If you can't commit to maintaining an extension to a third party website, don't distribute it and just keep it modified for your own personal use.