Talk about code development, features, specific bugs, enhancements, patches, and similar things.
Forum rules
Please keep everything here strictly on-topic.
This board is meant for Pale Moon source code development related subjects only like code snippets, patches, specific bugs, git, the repositories, etc.
This is not for tech support! Please do not post tech support questions in the "Development" board!
Please make sure not to use this board for support questions. Please post issues with specific websites, extensions, etc. in the relevant boards for those topics.
Please keep things on-topic as this forum will be used for reference for Pale Moon development. Expect topics that aren't relevant as such to be moved or deleted.
-
MozillaUser233
Unread post
by MozillaUser233 » 2013-12-18, 04:01
Trinoc wrote:MozillaUser233 wrote:Moonchild wrote:The browser responds this way because this is how Mozilla programmed the internal updater.
Short of a complete rewrite in how the internal updater handles minor updates, this is what I have to work with.
We now know all of us are dealing with mozilla now. That's crazy.
Moonchild, Thank you, and I and am sure, we all, appreciate your time to make this so much clearer. Much appreciated.
I see the problem now. :/
I wasn't aware that Mozilla had abandoned the basic principle that you shouldn't change anything on someone's computer without asking permission.
May I ask? Did I request upon downloading and installing a mozilla based browser to give this permission by any agreements when I downloaded and/or installed this giants software?
I am just asking,could this outcome to a lawsuit @Mozilla? Or if someone may confirm this is all theoretically/logical speaking?
-
Trinoc
- Fanatic
- Posts: 199
- Joined: 2013-10-24, 18:09
- Location: UK
Unread post
by Trinoc » 2013-12-18, 11:53
MozillaUser233 wrote:May I ask? Did I request upon downloading and installing a mozilla based browser to give this permission by any agreements when I downloaded and/or installed this giants software?
I am just asking,could this outcome to a lawsuit @Mozilla? Or if someone may confirm this is all theoretically/logical speaking?
I'd never thought of this in legal terms, just good practice. I don't remember agreeing to any terms and conditions when installing Firefox (and certainly not for Palemoon). You'd probably have to show that the feature caused significant damage to you, which would be difficult unless the code installed was malicious. Since it's free you can hardly claim you did not get what you paid for.
I think it's a case of
caveat emptor, or in this case
caveat freeloador.
