Pale Moon forum

Anyway, I am done here... but if we want to find this out definitively. I can start building Mypal with his patches... and you can sue me over it and we can see what the courts say. Let me know if you want to find out.

dbsoft wrote: ↑

2021-09-06, 12:19

If that was it, then you are clearly wrong in my assessment.

Then you need to re-asses what point 5.1 actually means. And not what you think it means. It's a very, very clear statement. The moment you are non-compliant, all your rights are terminated by termination of the all-encompassing grant. That means from any contributor. The fact that a single contributor can terminate a grant to a publisher based on transgressions isn't directly relevant there. Of course it does matter for the compliance status of the software as a whole, indirectly, because it will become non-compliant after termination of an individual grant. I think that is where your confusion is.

I'd provide an example but I'm quite busy at the moment so I repeat: talk to someone who can explain this in a way you can understand. I suggest in person so they can clarify with a napkin or whatnot.

dbsoft wrote: ↑

2021-09-06, 12:38

and you can sue me over it and we can see what the courts say

I hope you speak Swedish.
Please do talk to a lawyer before you get too deep into it. It'll save everyone a lot of headaches.

P.S. Send me your full name and address in a PM so I can prepare a proper C&D without having to dig.

Moonchild wrote: ↑

2021-09-06, 12:51

Then you need to re-asses what point 5.1 actually means. And not what you think it means. It's a very, very clear statement. The moment you are non-compliant, all your rights are terminated by termination of the all-encompassing grant. That means from any contributor. The fact that a single contributor can terminate a grant to a publisher based on transgressions isn't directly relevant there. Of course it does matter for the compliance status of the software as a whole, indirectly, because it will become non-compliant after termination of an individual grant. I think that is where your confusion is.

Well if it actually means what YOU think it means, then it is a terrifying situation for us all. Because one of your team could easily get all of those projects I listed earlier as well as dozens of others downstream, including mine terminated by non-compliance very easily. Since I make use of this code myself that is a terrifying thought, but I can't believe that is what the people at Mozilla were actually thinking when they created this license. Nor do I believe that is how the court would see it either. But even if all that is true (which I don't believe but hypothetically), fair use could still be used to circumvent the MPL license itself, since as I said earlier... the license is not the only source for rights in this scenario.

Moonchild wrote: ↑

2021-09-06, 12:55

I hope you speak Swedish.

I speak some Danish which is similar, but shouldn't be necessary in a US court.

Moonchild wrote: ↑

2021-09-06, 12:55

P.S. Send me your full name and address in a PM so I can prepare a proper C&D without having to dig.

Well if you want to try it out in court I'll be happy to.

Any litigation relating to this License may be brought only in the courts of a jurisdiction where the defendant maintains its principal place of business and such litigation shall be governed by laws of that jurisdiction, without reference to its conflict-of-law provisions.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the MPL 2.0 a bit more.

That would be pretty cool if he came to the US to do that. Since Chicago is only 4 hours from here we could meet up and I could attend.

Nah, I'm familiar with it.
I'm just upset. I shouldn't make posts when I'm upset as I'll not put enough thought into it. Regardless, if you want to play hardball, I'll oblige. I'd prefer not to, though.

Bottom line is it matters if you had a pre-existing fork of mypal or not. and apparently you didn't, in which case you'd be wrong to make a copy of a non-compliant source and expecting it to be legitimate. Please do sort that out.

Also I though you said you were done? Why are you still here?

He thinks he can operate on the same level as me.. Cause I am never done. Attention wavers, priorities shift, but in the end I always come after those in the wrong.

Moonchild wrote: ↑

2021-09-06, 13:17

Also I though you said you were done? Why are you still here?

Well done arguing circularly about the license, since we clearly are not going to agree on it without lawyers or courts weighing in.

But seriously, if you want to put it to the test, I'll talk to a lawyer and get the ball rolling. If the lawyer tells me I shouldn't do it, I'll post here of that fact.

Only because your opinion is twisted, your intentions are evil, AND your mind is full of communist promises of supreme domination.

dbsoft wrote: ↑

2021-09-06, 13:21

arguing circularly about the license

I wouldn't call it circular arguing if one side simply refuses to accept what is black and white stated in the license. It's more like trying to rewind and making the same argument again and again and expecting somehow a different result.

Moonchild wrote: ↑

2021-09-06, 13:36

I wouldn't call it circular arguing if one side simply refuses to accept what is black and white stated in the license. It's more like trying to rewind and making the same argument again and again and expecting somehow a different result.

Well I can relate, since that is how I feel as well.

Then stop doing it, nuke.

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.

If you genuinely think that that would ever be the conclusion of a court of law, you are kidding yourself. A court is not going to say that line after line after line after line after line after line after line (etc.) of code is all fair use. When pigs fly!

The fair use concept just isn't applied like that.

Tharthan wrote: ↑

2021-09-06, 15:45

If you genuinely think that that would ever be the conclusion of a court of law, you are kidding yourself. A court is not going to say that line after line after line after line after line after line after line (etc.) of code is all fair use. When pigs fly!

The fair use concept just isn't applied like that.

I just said it *could* be not that it is likely it would be. It all depends on the judge, the jurisdiction, the extenuating circumstances.

dbsoft wrote: ↑

2021-09-06, 20:49

I just said it *could* be not that it is likely it would be.

If it's unlikely (and honestly to me it's as unlikely as a snowball's chance in hell), why even bring it up? Well aside from the fact you wanted to use it as an argument to somehow strengthen your position, of course... Too bad it got shot down, eh?

Moonchild wrote: ↑

2021-09-06, 21:19

If it's unlikely (and honestly to me it's as unlikely as a snowball's chance in hell), why even bring it up? Well aside from the fact you wanted to use it as an argument to somehow strengthen your position, of course... Too bad it got shot down, eh?

It was to show that there are additional rights granted under Fair Use beyond what is explicit in the license, and giving an example of the most extreme case. It didn't get shot down at all and I think that the chances are better than a snowball's chance in hell. The more of a copyrighted work you claim under Fair Use the less likely it is to be deemed Fair Use, so that is clearly the least likely to happen, but considering the circumstances (of there being few browsers supporting XP and Pale Moon having dropped support they are not competing in the same space) I'd say it is a definite possibility.

Except they don't restrict it to JUST XP and Vista.. It runs, albeit not very well, on 7 and up. Not to mention the shitty scummy greasy way they try and steal everything not even covered under the MPL.

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)

"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.

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)
"Fair Use" in that context is an impossibly huge stretch, plenty of other XP-capable browsers out there

Yes "Fair Use" would likely not to fly here, but just to be pedantic, "Whether the browser is competitive" is literally one of the measuring factors of the "Fair Use":
- the effect of the use upon the potential market. whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work.
From a cursory search the only semi-updated and with best web support as of right now are like 4 forks of Pale Moon for XP.

Moonchild wrote: ↑

2021-09-06, 22:58

nothing is stopping anyone from creating their own independent fork that will work on XP. Claiming it MUST be Mypal is laughable.

Yes, nobody stops you from creating a fork, unfortunately to be 100% complaint you must now clean room code just in case you would duplicate something from Mypal. (yes i am being ridiculous here, but that is the price if you dont want to ever hit any bump, i hope not you are already looking for copies of the code in the other forks)