UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Discussions about the development and maturation of the platform code (UXP).
Warning: may contain highly-technical topics.

Moderators: trava90, athenian200

moonslayer
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 6
Joined: 2021-07-11, 21:27

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by moonslayer » 2021-09-07, 02:21

Moonchild, is there some reason you and Tobin want Mypal wiped off the face of the earth? I mean, if people other than Feodor2 have the code, and they comply with the MPL, then what's your problem with that?

moonslayer
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 6
Joined: 2021-07-11, 21:27

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by moonslayer » 2021-09-07, 02:27

Btw Moonchild, you and Tobin are building yourselves a terrible reputation. Go to any website (other than this one) where this incident is being discussed and you will see it.

dbsoft
Project Contributor
Project Contributor
Posts: 405
Joined: 2020-02-21, 17:35

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by dbsoft » 2021-09-07, 05:51

Moonchild wrote:
2021-09-06, 22:58
Whether the browser is competitive in the same space or not isn't even relevant here.
(just add that to the growing list of irrelevant tangents that are designed to detract from the core issue of non-compliance)
It is relevant for Fair Use, which is why I mentioned it.
Moonchild wrote:
2021-09-06, 22:58
"Fair Use" in that context is an impossibly huge stretch, especially since there are plenty of other XP-capable browsers out there, AND nothing is stopping anyone from creating their own independent fork that will work on XP. Claiming it MUST be Mypal is laughable. We're not talking about an extremely scarce commodity here.
What XP browsers exist that are still being updated regularly? The reason I had used Mypal is because it was the only one I found. All the other ones that can run on XP are ancient, haven't been updated in a very long time.

No one said someone else couldn't make one, I was just saying even with a revoked grant (I don't think it can be revoked but that is another story) you could make an argument for Fair Use... it would definitely be an uphill battle in court but it is possible.

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2021-09-07, 07:12

Why do you persist on trying to claim that 5.1 doesn't say exactly what it says. Also, why are you still here?

You're a manipulative traitor. A traitor to us, a traitor to open source, a traitor to America, and a traitor to humanity.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35404
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by Moonchild » 2021-09-07, 09:12

moonslayer wrote:
2021-09-07, 02:21
Moonchild, is there some reason you and Tobin want Mypal wiped off the face of the earth?
I can only speak for myself but I have no desire to wipe any fork off of the face of the earth. That's the narrative created here though by people who want to attack us. If I wanted to, it would have happened a long time ago but clearly, despite not agreeing with the how and why of Mypal, I've not attempted to "wipe it off the face of the earth" nor have I any desire to. Where I do draw the line though is where they break with the Open Source licensing and the attitude that "anyone can do anything with the code they want" because that is simply not what copyleft Open Source is and I will not give any quarter to anyone who wants to flaunt my rights to my own hard work.
moonslayer wrote:
2021-09-07, 02:21
I mean, if people other than Feodor2 have the code, and they comply with the MPL, then what's your problem with that?
If people other than Feodor2 have the code, and they obtained it legally (i.e. by using a compliant source at the time of acquisition), and they comply with (and keep complying with) the MPL, then there is absolutely no issue with that in my book.
moonslayer wrote:
2021-09-07, 02:27
Btw Moonchild, you and Tobin are building yourselves a terrible reputation.
Well, that's entirely because the ones behind this criminal resistance to Open Source for some reason want to damage our reputation to the maximum extent here. I also don't know what you expect us to do about it except waste a lot of time and/or somehow rally our own army to go fight this media war. We don't have that kind of manpower or resources, anyway. So yeah if our reputation ends up being terrible then that is entirely due to the actions of the hate group who just want to apply the gimme-gimme-gimme to anything they can get their filthy hands on (as recent theft from a private repository to be blatantly posted in roytam's repo also underlined), not even giving any thought about the long-term consequences of attacking the very people who do the core work of their own spinoffs. But I guess they don't care? Or maybe they just want us to throw in the towel and end up with a fully corporate-controlled monoculture? One can only guess. :think:

Needless to say, all of this will have consequences with how we will do things going forward. Collaborative development is obviously a farce at this point (and maybe it was always a pipe dream, after all) and since there's this attitude of "taking things then attacking the original creators" it'll be taken into account in our further approach to development of the browser and underlying platform.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2021-09-07, 10:58

Moonchild wrote:
2021-09-07, 09:12
Collaborative development is obviously a farce at this point
Maybe when the rest of the world comes to back to their senses. Maybe then. In the meantime we have shit to do for the few hundred or so who's voices aren't saturated with venomous hate and wishes of death. To say nothing about the currently silent hundreds of thousands whom have no idea these events are taking place or just don't want to become their next target.

You wanted a "Judgement Day", moonslayer? Well we always try to accomidate everyone's requests whenever possible.
Last edited by New Tobin Paradigm on 2021-09-07, 11:09, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tharthan
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1409
Joined: 2019-05-20, 20:07
Location: New England

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by Tharthan » 2021-09-07, 11:05

Moonchild wrote:
2021-09-07, 09:12
Collaborative development is obviously a farce at this point (and maybe it was always a pipe dream, after all)
Is it truly a farce, or does there simply need to be some sort of "weeding out" process applied to any new interested collaborators?

There are people who have come along over the years, whether to develop add-ons or make some contributions (minor or otherwise) to the browser itself, who appear to have done some genuinely good work. Wouldn't it be easier to make people sign some digital contract, or go through some sort of "background check" or something (to determine whether they have bad ulterior motives, or if there is something otherwise questionable about their past actions)?
"This is a war against individuality and intelligence. Only thing we can do is stand strong."adesh, 9 January 2020

"I used to think I was a grumpy old man, but I don't hold a candle compared to Tharthan."Cassette, 9 September 2020

Image

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2021-09-07, 11:11

Why bother, they will just Fedor2 it ignoring it wholesale or twist and omit bits they don't agree with just like with the MPL or djames1 it covertly while JustOffing with lies and subversion with a generous amount of revisionist history.

User avatar
Tharthan
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1409
Joined: 2019-05-20, 20:07
Location: New England

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by Tharthan » 2021-09-07, 11:32

The whole point of having a weeding-out process would be to significantly lessen the chances that any new djames1s or JustOffs will pop up.

With regard to Fedor2s, I have a hard time imagining how they would be likely to pop up again going forward.

I would seriously suggest to Moonchild that he consider implementing some kind of weeding-out process, because it would only serve to address some of the serious concerns being expressed given these recent events.

And, NewTobinParadigm, the whole process that you went through that successfully outed djames1 as a traitor seems to demonstrate that some kind of (for lack of a better term) "background check" could probably be implemented, with enough effort. Not to mention, you said that there were signs of treachery long before he was finally booted out. So perhaps a greater level of caution and a "better safe than sorry" attitude may need to be applied with regard to that going forward.
"This is a war against individuality and intelligence. Only thing we can do is stand strong."adesh, 9 January 2020

"I used to think I was a grumpy old man, but I don't hold a candle compared to Tharthan."Cassette, 9 September 2020

Image

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35404
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by Moonchild » 2021-09-07, 11:46

Tharthan wrote:
2021-09-07, 11:05
does there simply need to be some sort of "weeding out" process
And who will be doing that, exactly?
Tharthan wrote:
2021-09-07, 11:05
There are people who have come along over the years
Yes there are, but ultimately how many of those have actually contributed collaboratively? How many of those didn't turn out to be people just getting in enough to then 180 and go "gotcha!"? How many have actually helped with core development in a significant way that are still around? I guess the answer is.. only one.
Remember this post in this very board? Do you think I would have posted it if collaborative development was happening in any reasonable fashion?... :think:
Tharthan wrote:
2021-09-07, 11:05
Wouldn't it be easier to make people sign some digital contract, or go through some sort of "background check" or something (to determine whether they have bad ulterior motives, or if there is something otherwise questionable about their past actions)?
I've been thinking about that but how do you enforce a contract like that when the people aren't even adhering to the stipulations of a very lenient copyleft license?
Past actions are also easily hidden if you know what you're doing, and even so they are no measure for future intent.

It's not our job (nor within our skillset) to be private investigators for new contributors. That's just deferring the root problem to somewhere else, anyway.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
Moonraker
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1878
Joined: 2015-09-30, 23:02
Location: uk.

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by Moonraker » 2021-09-07, 11:59

moonslayer wrote:
2021-09-07, 02:21
Moonchild, is there some reason you and Tobin want Mypal wiped off the face of the earth? I mean, if people other than Feodor2 have the code, and they comply with the MPL, then what's your problem with that?
Off-topic:
Well windows xp is on life support so in a few years (or sooner) it will wipe itself out.
user of multiple puppy linuxes..upup,fossapup.scpup,xenialpup..... :thumbup:

Pale moon 29.4.1

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2021-09-07, 12:46

Off-topic:
They pulled the plug a long while ago. It is a zombie. Aim for the head.

User avatar
ron_1
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2851
Joined: 2012-06-28, 01:20

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by ron_1 » 2021-09-07, 22:15

moonslayer wrote:
2021-09-07, 02:27
Btw Moonchild, you and Tobin are building yourselves a terrible reputation. Go to any website (other than this one) where this incident is being discussed and you will see it.
Probably by a bunch of socialists that think they have a right to anything anybody else has made/produced without following the rules/laws. I've seen some of this crap before on other websites. BTW, I find your forum name a bit dubious. :think:

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2021-09-08, 01:33

Originality is sorely lacking from these XPeople especially in the area of names. That is how this all started in the first place. The behavior you cite, however, is what has continued it and escalated it over a protracted period of time.

moonslayer
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 6
Joined: 2021-07-11, 21:27

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by moonslayer » 2021-09-09, 03:50

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
2021-09-07, 07:12
You're a manipulative traitor. A traitor to us, a traitor to open source, a traitor to America, and a traitor to humanity.
You really don't have to constantly insult people.
ron_1 wrote:
2021-09-07, 22:15
moonslayer wrote:
2021-09-07, 02:27
Btw Moonchild, you and Tobin are building yourselves a terrible reputation. Go to any website (other than this one) where this incident is being discussed and you will see it.
Probably by a bunch of socialists that think they have a right to anything anybody else has made/produced without following the rules/laws. I've seen some of this crap before on other websites.
It's obvious that section 5 of the MPL was intended to be used to stop people from releasing executables without releasing source code. Feodor2 obviously was not concealing the source code.

Perhaps I should remind you what the point of free, open source software is:

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.

It's not socialism or communism, those are forms of government. It's just a result of people willingly contributing to open source projects. People just tend to assume that since Pale Moon is open source, then its developers respect those freedoms. When you shut down a fork and forbid anyone else from using code from that fork, it's bad for people that use that fork. Please understand that I like Pale Moon, I use it on all my machines. I just wish you didn't give people a hard time when they try to port it to more platforms.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35404
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by Moonchild » 2021-09-09, 17:12

moonslayer wrote:
2021-09-09, 03:50
You really don't have to constantly insult people.
Was that an insult or merely the truth? ;)
moonslayer wrote:
2021-09-09, 03:50
It's obvious that section 5 of the MPL was intended to be used to stop people from releasing executables without releasing source code.
... which is exactly what Feodor did. One of the few obligations the MPL has is releasing the source code along with your executables, and he didn't do that. He didn't even tell people how they could get those source code forms of what he released as executable... even when specifically asked (which shouldn't have to be needed).
You can't generalise "releasing source code" under the MPL. It has to be exact. if it's not exact then your point of being able to inspect/study the source code of what you're running so you can understand how it works doesn't hold (with potentially disastrous consequences in terms of security, etc.)
The same is true for most Open Source licenses, especially copyleft ones.
moonslayer wrote:
2021-09-09, 03:50
Feodor2 obviously was not concealing the source code.
Concealment is not the issue here, although if you want to make that a point of argument then it was concealment through obscurity.
The MPL is explicitly clear that you must provide the items you publish in their source code form (i.e.: exactly that source used to build that executable). You can argue for months about general intent or philosophy that led to the various licenses but the bottom line is and will remain that licenses are a binding set of rules you must adhere to. If you break the rules then that has consequences. You can argue that it was unintentional but that ship sailed in 2019 when this happened the first time; and that is why there is a clause that a first transgression isn't immediately permanently punished. A second time though...? :think:
moonslayer wrote:
2021-09-09, 03:50
Perhaps I should remind you what the point of free, open source software is:
While that is a nice summary of the philosophy behind FOSS, it does not in any way indicate the obligations that come with it. You cannot ignore the obligations; having those freedoms also has a cost to make those freedoms possible, often in the form of developing and publishing a certain way. Without that cost, you can't have those freedoms.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

dbsoft
Project Contributor
Project Contributor
Posts: 405
Joined: 2020-02-21, 17:35

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by dbsoft » 2021-09-09, 18:52

Moonchild wrote:
2021-09-09, 17:12
Concealment is not the issue here, although if you want to make that a point of argument then it was concealment through obscurity.
The MPL is explicitly clear that you must provide the items you publish in their source code form (i.e.: exactly that source used to build that executable). You can argue for months about general intent or philosophy that led to the various licenses but the bottom line is and will remain that licenses are a binding set of rules you must adhere to. If you break the rules then that has consequences. You can argue that it was unintentional but that ship sailed in 2019 when this happened the first time; and that is why there is a clause that a first transgression isn't immediately permanently punished. A second time though...? :think:
I'm pretty sure the exact source code to produce it was in the repository. The issue seems to me is clarity and simplicity. If Feodor2 was failing that, then your friend Tobin is as well. I personally think both passed the MPL test by the barest margins, but still did, since clarity and simplicity is not in the MPL text. I am not happy with either of their methods, but if done like they are supposed to, neither would be in violation of the MPL.

Paraphrasing what you said regarding Tobin's method, "You don't have to like how they do it as long as they do it."

moonslayer
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 6
Joined: 2021-07-11, 21:27

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by moonslayer » 2021-09-09, 19:17

dbsoft wrote:
2021-09-09, 18:52
Moonchild wrote:
2021-09-09, 17:12
Concealment is not the issue here, although if you want to make that a point of argument then it was concealment through obscurity.
The MPL is explicitly clear that you must provide the items you publish in their source code form (i.e.: exactly that source used to build that executable). You can argue for months about general intent or philosophy that led to the various licenses but the bottom line is and will remain that licenses are a binding set of rules you must adhere to. If you break the rules then that has consequences. You can argue that it was unintentional but that ship sailed in 2019 when this happened the first time; and that is why there is a clause that a first transgression isn't immediately permanently punished. A second time though...? :think:
I'm pretty sure the exact source code to produce it was in the repository. The issue seems to me is clarity and simplicity. If Feodor2 was failing that, then your friend Tobin is as well. I personally think both passed that test by the barest margins, but still did. I am not happy with either of their methods, but if done like they are supposed to, neither would be in violation of the MPL.

Paraphrasing what you said regarding Tobin's method, "You don't have to like how they do it as long as they do it."
I agree with you. If anything it's more inconvenient trying to get source code from Tobin. You could download it straight from Feodor2's repository, but with Tobin you have to request it from him via email. To say that it's easier to get source code from Tobin is absurd.

User avatar
daemonspudguy
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 121
Joined: 2020-04-22, 18:47
Location: Marietta, Ohio, USA, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Milky Way, Universe, Multiverse
Contact:

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by daemonspudguy » 2021-09-09, 19:31

dbsoft wrote:
2021-09-06, 11:28
In fact, it is possible that the entire source code could be deemed fair use if it is for the public good... such as something like the only browser supported on XP.
THAT'S NOT HOW FAIR USE WORKS! WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HERE?!

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35404
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: UXP and allied Project Contributors.. Your rights are being violated along with the MPL.

Unread post by Moonchild » 2021-09-09, 20:10

dbsoft wrote:
2021-09-09, 18:52
The issue seems to me is clarity and simplicity. If Feodor2 was failing that, then your friend Tobin is as well.
Nope, incorrect. I guess the effort I put in my e-mail to you was wasted because you keep rejecting the obvious.

MPL 2.0 (with added emphasis)
1.13. “Source Code Form”

means the form of the work preferred for making modifications.
"The work" means the published software
1.6. “Executable Form”

means any form of the work other than Source Code Form.
3.2. Distribution of Executable Form

If You distribute Covered Software in Executable Form then:

such Covered Software must also be made available in Source Code Form, as described in Section 3.1, and You must inform recipients of the Executable Form how they can obtain a copy of such Source Code Form by reasonable means in a timely manner, at a charge no more than the cost of distribution to the recipient;
"such covered software" refers directly to the executable form being distributed, i.e. exactly that which users can download.
Note the wording. The source code form has to be a direct match of the executable form, i.e. it has to exactly match the distributed executable if compiled.

Tobin was (and remains) compliant because his EULA informs recipients how they can obtain a copy of the program in source code form. Even if his repo for his own development isn't public, that EULA statement satisfies the MPL (since Tobin clearly follows up on requests made).
Feodor2 was not compliant because the Centaury repo didn't contain the source code form, and users were also not informed how they could obtain a copy of the published program in source code form. That information has to be readily available.

(Note: Even when asked (although it already meant non-compliance since it wasn't readily available information) no clear information was given to obtain a copy of the executable in its source code form (one had to guess which commit to use for which version, based on dates, etc.), so even with the benefit of the doubt it wasn't satisfied there, because that's not a reasonable way of supplying exact source code.)
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

Locked