Pale Moon forum

For his not-the-same repo scheme to work all he had to do is provide a direct link to a tag or commit on his repo release summery where he attached the binary. That would have been the bare minimum required to inform how to obtain it. That link to code which has Exhibit A attached to the file might, though it is on a razor's edge, inform that the code was under the MPL.

BUT THAT WASN'T DONE not in 2019 nor 2021 on mypal or centaury respectively. 2 violations of the MPL notified by me and under Section 5.1 the grant for my contributions was explicitly terminated.

Anything else from them is distraction, deception, futile loophole seeking, and warmongering.

End of story.

dbsoft wrote: ↑

2021-09-10, 15:24

It says nothing about that in the license. If he provided the source code he is compliant.

He's probably not going to read this, but for anyone else following this thread:

Mozilla Public License 2.0 wrote: All distribution of Covered Software in Source Code Form, including any Modifications that You create or to which You contribute, must be under the terms of this License.

followed by

Mozilla Public License 2.0 wrote: If You distribute Covered Software in Executable Form then:

1. 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;

which means that whoever distributes the executable has to provide the source code, thus the developers are involved, unless there is a designated person in charge of handling distribution, in which case it's up to that person to handle the distribution of source code for specific versions.
End users, being end users, do not distribute executable forms of the program, so while they can actively ask for the source code, like it's the case for Tobin's applications, should not (or maybe must not) have to go and search for the source code by themselves, e.g. by vaguely searching for release dates in the git log history.

vannilla seems to have described it how I've interpreted the snippet, though I've not read the full licence at all. I imagine it's this part that Feodor2 breached:

"how they can obtain a copy of such Source Code Form by reasonable means in a timely manner"

Feodor2 only ever made an incredibly vague response to any user request for source clarification (telling someone to "figure it out yourself from the release date and a messy, held-back source repository" several weeks down the line is certainly not 'reasonable' in any way, and since he is the one responsible for distribution, he should be following the MPL2 too (which he wasn't/isn't). Honestly I have to wonder if this all started out of what others see as too restrictive terms for contributed builds, while here the consensus seems to be that 'if it differs enough in the backend to the point it will run into its own issues/attract attention from people who will assume such builds are virtually identical in the backend, we don't accept it' (which makes sense, since a modification/adaptation of an existing project should not be endorsed by the official contributors in a way that implies they should be expected to be on functional parity with each other).

The takedown happened not purely out of spite for his 'take-take-and-don't-give-back' attitude I imagine but because he was violating the licence he was supposed to follow (though it is unlikely he has even read the terms).

It takes a special kind of asshole to violate open source licenses.

Especially considering the freedom they give.

Smh...

When in doubt, silence the truth...

Ultimately, this shows me that we made the right call moving away from GitHub and onto our own infrastructure in the first place. I'm just glad we didn't have to scramble to migrate our repos off GitHub in light of this, because if we hadn't already done so we would pretty much have to do it now in light of what just happened.

What an upside-down world this is, where the victims are treated like criminals and the criminals are treated like victims. I guess that's "justice" in 2021.

Ridiculous. It's a sad day when mob rule determines whether you get censored from speaking the truth.

athenian200 wrote: ↑

2021-09-12, 18:06

I'm just glad we didn't have to scramble to migrate our repos off GitHub in light of this, because if we hadn't already done so we would pretty much have to do it now in light of what just happened.

That wouldn't even have been possible because as far as I know the migration routines in our Gitea aren't compatible with anything but a now-discontinued API on Github, so it would effectively mean all we could get would be the raw public repos and not anything else like issues or what not.

Moonchild wrote: ↑

2021-09-12, 19:46

Ridiculous. It's a sad day when mob rule determines whether you get censored from speaking the truth.

athenian200 wrote: ↑

2021-09-12, 18:06

I'm just glad we didn't have to scramble to migrate our repos off GitHub in light of this, because if we hadn't already done so we would pretty much have to do it now in light of what just happened.

That wouldn't even have been possible because as far as I know the migration routines in our Gitea aren't compatible with anything but a now-discontinued API on Github, so it would effectively mean all we could get would be the raw public repos and not anything else like issues or what not.

I see he has support from 4chan, I am surprised your repo was disabled by github.

Would codeberg be a good option?

Btw, is the uxp repo going to be downloadable?

Github hasn't disabled anything. Also, UXP is STILL on our forge under the mcp-graveyard. We are no longer going to use the Unified XUL Platform any longer. New branding will be forthcoming. For now it is just the "Platform Codebase" and is no longer public except for required Source Code Form of Covered Software relating to a Executable Form.

New Tobin Paradigm wrote: ↑

2021-09-15, 01:48

For now it is just the "Platform Codebase" and is no longer public except for required Source Code Form of Covered Software relating to a Executable Form.

It will still be completely open source (source code downloadable), right?

Batman wrote: ↑

2021-09-15, 01:53

It will still be completely open source (source code downloadable), right?

Absolutely. We have continued to provide the source and will continue to provide the source for each release, regardless of the total BS some people are spreading around.

Been busy IRL changing jobs and such and missed out on most of the drama. From the TL;DR I can gather... Fedor2 violated trademark with his project and refused to properly post source tarballs in violation of MPL.

However, UXP itself was unbranded, so I don't understand why the entire UXP was killed off? I presume this means "Platform Codebase" will be released as tarball only and without public version control/git? What does this mean for the future of compliant allied projects?

Thanks.

No it waa his secomd violation of the MPL section 3.1(a) and under secrion 5.1 i terminated the grant to use my contributions.

Fedor2 eventually complied and did what he was suppost to in the end but his followers and previously unaffiliated groups and enemy agents have srarted a war over this.

Maybe you should do more research before making shit up about a situation you know little about.

If you want to find where they are hiding, they are still on GitHub, just on another place.

My guess is that they named themselves out of pure spite "ManchildProductions" and all of their current endeavours can be found on https://github.com/ManchildProductions? ... 2021-08-31. Sifting through their repositories, it seems that they just put it on GitHub without giving proper credits.

According to their activity log and the MSFN thread on https://msfn.org/board/topic/182647-my- ... lds-part-3 there seems just to assemble themselves a bit.

Statement retracted after learning what a poon is.

It is Daniel James. If you feel it is illegitimate then please report it to Github as such.

The name is vulgar.