license

[Feodor2]

I know in general that with opensource code anybody can do whatever they want. But i may be do not know something and with this particular code too. I ask someone who knows better to check if its alright from this side.

[NickTheNeko0]

well you should be safe to use Palemoon for your fork unless Palemoon go's with a different license or you brake the license between Firefox and Palemoon by making it "Closed source" but it mostly depends on the situation and problem. Form my perspective Palemoon is jealous because Mypal has more users than Palemoon but that's their fault for not supporting WinXP machines

[NickTheNeko0]

Also "MyPal" is your property so they can't tell you what to do with it, They(Palemoon) made their browser Open Source soo they are the one to put the blame on at first place.

[Feodor2]

As i understand they took code from the firefox and not allowed to go closed source, and this is fair. They continues take new code pieces from the firefox mostly.

Today i noticed moonchild put his name on few specific files https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/UXP/blob/master/dom/media/webaudio/blink/HRTFDatabaseLoader.cpp i why wonder why he did this, and what does this mean. Does he declare these files his property?

[NickTheNeko0]

As i understand they took code from the firefox and not allowed to go closed source, and this is fair. They continues take new code pieces from the firefox mostly.

Today i noticed moonchild put his name on few specific files https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/UXP/blob/master/dom/media/webaudio/blink/HRTFDatabaseLoader.cpp i why wonder why he did this, and what does this mean. Does he declare these files his property?

Honestly what's their problem with you?? can't they just go bully and be j*rks to other developers?. Tell them(Them = MoonchildProductions) to come back when they start to support Windows XP and 98/ME. Both browsers target different platforms(OS) and have nothing to do when it comes to trying to get more PC users, also if they are licensing it as open source they can't do a thing to you without making their code Closed Source at first place.

TL:DR: MoonchildProductions have no right to sue you as long as their code is Open Source, And if the code you are using is Open Source with the same license.

TL:DR2: MoonchildProductions can go and sit down and shut up until they find a valid reason to sue you or make problems with you.

[Feodor2]

Honestly what's their problem with you??

There always was half-allusions and threats but never they never tell strict though, i think that they do not like greatly i publish my alternative browser.

I was just curious why he put his name inside some particular files, cant he put his name inside every file?

[Feodor2]

Hey folks Enviouses not going to leave us. Today they they fall upon me all together. Please elaborate may be i do not get something. https://github.com/Feodor2/Centaury/issues/41 I think the source code is well available for anyone and can take it to do anything.

[mattatobin]

No, the code is under the Mozilla Public License 2.0 which has terms and conditions you must comply with in order to use Covered Code under that license. It is NOT public domain and cannot be used as you see fit as if it were.

[wolfbeast]

Please read and understand the MPL 2.0 thoroughly. If you have trouble understanding it, get legal counsel.

For example:

I know in general that with opensource code anybody can do whatever they want.

This is incorrect. it is not Public Domain.

TL:DR: MoonchildProductions have no right to sue you as long as their code is Open Source, And if the code you are using is Open Source with the same license.

This is only true if and and for so long as the Open Source license is adhered to. And don't tell me to shut up about the rights I have under the MPL 2.0

[Feodor2]

So whats wrong, do you want it become not public? There in the Mozilla license written that it must be public, and you must provide your sources too.

[wolfbeast]

We are in compliance and provide the source code. You are not.

[Feodor2]

like it or not but i provide the source code too, and i pointed you where to look for what is your problem?

[mattatobin]

When you provide an Executable Form you must inform all recipients where they may obtain the Source Code Form of Covered Code that produced it. On-demand responses pointing to a single untracted branch does not qualify and certainly not on an on-demand basis after a violation of terms has occured.

This must be done upon their receipt of it by reasonable means if you distrubute an Executable Form under Section 3.2 Paragraph A.

You have not done this. Since for me, irregardless of the state of claims by other contributors, this is the second time you have violated the terms of the MPL in regards to Covered Code including Modifications by my self under this License. Thus under Section 5.1 I have terminated your grant (from Section 2.1) to use any Covered Code of which I have contributed.

As a result you must withdraw all Executable Forms created from Covered Code I have contributed to and remove such code from any future offerings. This includes MyPal and Centaury.

Referencing the issue you dismissed out of hand for the record: https://github.com/Feodor2/Centaury/issues/39

[Feodor2]

You post leads to misinformation

Here the right paragraph of https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/

**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; and**

[mattatobin]

I was not informed of how I can obtain the Source Code Form used in creation of an Executable Form before or after I downloaded and ran the Executable Form. Your after-the-fact information does not bring you back into compliance with the MPL because it is not clear that branch is the state of the Source Code Form used in creation of such Executable Form. Your second violation of the License means you cannot return to a compliant state under the License unless I, as a contributor, allow it. The first time you could by complying, this time it is not so easy even IF you do take steps to comply, which you haven't as you have yet to make any effort in that regard to any others obtaining your distributed Executable Form.

Since you are in violation of the terms of the License and under the terms of that License I have terminated your grant to my contributions it falls back to bog standard copyright and since you no longer have such a right or license to use such code you are violating my intellectual property rights. As such further action will have to be undertaken if you do not comply with my lawful request to remove infringing intellectual property.

Please remove it, btw.

[Feodor2]

You bear all the misinformation, you distort mozilla license.

[BasBock]

I always though the open source community was all about helping each other and making things better together, all this talk sounds more like how large powerhungry corporations would act...

[mattatobin]

You bear all the misinformation, you distort mozilla license.

I am asserting my rights under the terms of the Mozilla Public License 2.0 as a contributor of Covered Code.

You have already stated intent to continue to violate said terms by asserting that you can do anything you want with Covered Code. You are the one who is misinformed if you believe you can violate the terms of the License and that each contributor does not have rights under this License.

[mattatobin]

I always though the open source community was all about helping each other and making things better together, all this talk sounds more like how large powerhungry corporations would act...

Then maybe @Feodor2 shouldn't use code under a license specifically created by a big corperation in the first place. Perhaps he should find something GPL or BSD to work on.

[wolfbeast]

You bear all the misinformation, you distort mozilla license.

No, in fact he's applying the Mozilla license to the letter here. Nothing is distorted except your misinterpretation of the license. Like I said before if you can't understand your obligations under the MPL, get legal counsel who can explain it in a way you can understand.

all this talk sounds more like how large powerhungry corporations would act...

Maybe it's news to you but individuals also have legal rights under the copyright act. In fact, it is the default unless rights are granted (note: granted!) by the rights holder otherwise. The MPL grants such rights, but only if you are in compliance with it. Break with the license, then you can no longer use the code.

[Feodor2]

Tobin i wont go for your manipulations. I consider that it is all right with rules of the license and this article.

[mattatobin]

You violate my rights repeatedly and you dare to say I am being manipulative? I have cited the license as written and tried to enlighten you but all you do is ignore any substance that would hold you accountable and then flaunt it.

I am sorry but there is no reasoning with you. I will have to pursue this by additional means.

It really is a sickening feeling when your rights are trampled...

[Feodor2]

I have cited the license as written

This is exact lie, you cited the license as you see fit.

[mattatobin]

Who is lying here dude? I have linked, referenced, and cited the Mozilla Public License version 2.0, specifically, which terms you have violated and under which terms I am acting. I have also provided additional explainations as to what those terms mean and how they are applied in context.

You have responded with personal attacks and misrepresentions when you couldn't just dismiss it and sweep it under the rug with a click of the mouse.

Actions have consequences and yours are long over due, my friend.

[mattatobin]

Additional reference issues for per-contributor notifications of license violations:

https://github.com/Feodor2/Centaury/issues/40 https://github.com/Feodor2/Centaury/issues/41

[Feodor2]

Tobin you may edit your posts of course, but your older lies remain preserved.

[mattatobin]

So correcting typos, adding additional information, and clarifing statements is lying now.

K.

You do know I can delete the older revisions of my comments, ye? Didn't really think about it until you mentioned it but I will leave em as is so others outside your XP fetish clique can see YOUR rather poor attempt at manipulations.

Regardless, I think I will let others to whom you have damaged respond further. This isn't all about me but every contributor to such Covered Code under this License.

[Feodor2]

Do you want to say you typed license paragraphs by hands? Why. If wanted cite exact paragraph you copy paste. May delete though yes. Until then let other people can see what you corrected.

[mattatobin]

You might want to make a few corrections yourself there, buddy.

[wolfbeast]

(OT) @Feodor2 All edits to posts in these issues are fully visible to anyone as diffs, so I'm not sure what your complaint is.

[mattatobin]

I notice you removed your australis-class browser downloads but the violation still exists and because of it your grant to use my contributions is still terminated.

Your strata4-class browser and a significant swath of platform codebase contains code I have touched. Still needs dealt with.

The grant cannot be reinstated. Please comply at once.

[wolfbeast]

Also, just "moving elsewhere"[1] and re-publishing it elsewhere without solving the source code issues will not solve the licensing issues and you would still be in violation of the MPL.

"maybe it is a point to delete the whole my github to go somewhere else"

P.S. Said thread the quote is from also indicates you clearly understand the issue at hand, so I won't accept any further feigned ignorance.

[mattatobin]

He understood it three years ago in Feodor2/Mypal333#35 .. I made sure it was clear and that is why I have no confidence he won't just violate terms and rights again in the future. This is why I explicitly terminated the grant as provided for in Section 5.1.

EDIT: These are all the commits I made. There may be duplicates between UXP and Basilisk due to how it was split. If you have any questions about a specific commit please highlight me here. I will surely do my upmost to answer them.

NOTE: The WebComponents commits were committed by me but authored by @g4jc so you can safely exclude those when you encounter them. Also, obviously merging pull requests (but not local branch merges) would also be excluded.

basilisk-commits.txt palemoon-commits.txt uxp-commits.txt

[mattatobin]

Regarding https://msfn.org/board/topic/182647-my-browser-builds-part-3/?do=findComment&comment=1203820

Each contributor under the MPL has the same rights I am currently asserting but those are contingent on the circumstance of the terms of the license. I am at the point of being able to terminate your grant for my contributions because this is the second time you have violated the MPL against me.

The other two contributors to Covered Code are in the position and process I was in 2019 with the first violation. Their notifications of violations set into effect a time limited situation you still have to resolve in order for them to either deem you back into compliance or terminate your grant for their contributions as well.

Of course if you resolve their claim against you this time then next time they will be at the point I am. Which will be the situation also if you don't resolve it. Removing the binaries for Centuary can only bring you back into compliance as long as you either never release them again or release them abd inform recipients how they can obtain the source code among every other license provision.

Of course right now none of your offerings are valid until you resolve the situation with me. I have provided you with all you need to comply with my lawful order to remove anything using contributions I made and stand by to answer questions on specifics in leu of going forward by other means.

I would suggest you don't dawdle else you will find the situation only getting worse for yourself.

[Feodor2]

I am ready to remove your code property Tobin. But i do not know what lines of this whole code is your property, and it is not any clear way how to determine this code lines from lists with some unknown commits which not exist in this source code. So point code lines for remove in this source and with reasonables proof that it is actually yours property source code

[mattatobin]

I gave you git logs from our repositories of everything I have committed from 2014 to today. You are simply going to have to start from there and work your way forward. If a specific commit is not clear I stand by to clarify if it is my code.

My reasonable proof is the commit log.

EDIT: Speaking of, I forgot to include the log from https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/Tycho-dev

tycho-commits.txt

[Feodor2]

to start from there and work your way forward. If a specific commit is not clear I stand by to clarify if it is my code.

Then let begin where your source code in the commit 0d19b77d3eaa5b8d837bf52c19759e68e42a1c4c

My reasonable proof is the commit log.

How it prove that its code is written by you and not taken elsewhere.

[mattatobin]

That actually isn't code.. It is git repo configuration and isn't even under the MPL. But you may use it ;)

If you are, however, not going to accept that with rare exception my contributions are mine then the open source license is meaningless and it falls back to copyright across the board which means you are going to have to seek permission from every copyright holder for the past 22 years. That is hundreds of thousands of people. Is that REALLY how you are gonna play this?

[Feodor2]

That actually isn't code.. It is git repo configuration and isn't even under the MPL. But you may use it ;)

So lets go to the next: e72ef92b5bdc43cd2584198e2e54e951b70299e8

If you are, however, not accept that nearly all my contributions are mine then the open source license is meaningless and it falls >back to copyright across the board which means you are going to have to seek permission from every copyright holder for the >past 22 years.

As i understand i must remove only your property code lines, and can keep what is left. I ask you to point where it is, then i shall remove it and thats all. For example in the commit above application/basilisk/branding/official/appname.bmp not your property for sure, why i must remove it?

[wolfbeast]

How it prove that its code is written by you and not taken elsewhere.

I see what you're trying to do here.

The original source of code is irrelevant because the person making the modification to the source code in question is Tobin. Unless the Author is claimed to be someone else (which generally only occurs for verbatim patch application), the modification will be authored by whomever is the author of the commit. This is why git has the option to specify both author and committer of commits, so someone else than the author of the modification can commit it to a tree.

It's irrelevant if the modification is based on existing code elsewhere (as long as that existing code isn't otherwise prohibited/proprietary). The only thing that matters is that the modification committed to the tree is authored by someone. If that someone is Tobin, then you can no longer use that modification unless you have explicit permission from him, since he retracted his grant for use of his modifications.

[Feodor2]

Point where these modifications authored by Tobin in this code source.

[dmiranda12]

Even if Tobin manages to identify "his" modifications, they are still open to be used by whoever wishes to do so, in the same manner he used someone else's modifications over the original firefox-netcape code. What a dope.

[dmiranda12]

"This is why git has the option to specify both author and committer of commits, so someone else than the author of the modification can commit it to a tree" Laf. Sue me.

[mattatobin]

Point where these modifications authored by Tobin in this code source.

I gave you a full account of changes to Covered Software (any previous mentions of "Covered Code" should read "Covered Software".. gotta love the differences between 1.1 and 2.0) that I committed on git. Each commit has metadata you can easily look up and see what files and lines in those files were changed along the line. If a specific commit (not each and every commit) is suspect then ask. I will be glad to answer.

---

Even if Tobin manages to identify "his" modifications,

I have.

they are still open to be used by whoever wishes to do so, in the same manner he used someone else's modifications over the original firefox-netcape code. What a dope.

You are correct, @dmiranda12, anyone who follows the terms of the MPL may use Covered Software according to the terms of the License if it comes from a legit source such as our repos or even Roytam1's. Anyone except @fedor2 when it comes to my contributions. This repo is currently invalid because Fedor doesn't have rights any longer to use my contributions so you couldn't just clone it... You would need to start over or base things on someone elses repo and create the changes Fedor did.

I think you need to re-read MPL Definitions in Sections 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.10. That should clear up the confusion.

[mattatobin]

Just a notice, I have had a tooth extracted so I may not be able to answer things as quickly as normal for a few days. I will try of course but I wanted you to know.

[dmiranda12]

"I think you need to re-read MPL Definitions in Sections 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.10. That should clear up the confusion." I'll get my lawyers to read the footprint, roflmao.

[Feodor2]

I ask about the same commit above, i cannot find files set match in this source, elaborate clear way how to remove this commit? I shall do remove else what is match without question

[dmiranda12]

I see no reason for you to remove anything, nor do I see any validity in the glibberish exposed above.

[wolfbeast]

@dmiranda12

I'll get my lawyers to read the footprint, roflmao.

You should. The MPL is very clear in that it allows authors to rescind rights to people who do not adhere to the license. Feodor2 did not adhere to the license and within the terms of the license Tobin has retracted the right for Feodor2 to use his modifications.

@Feodor2

I ask about the same commit above

So, are you planning to have a back-and-forth about every commit of the list that Tobin has given you? I think you'll run out of time in that case, judging by the number of commits listed. As long as you do not solve the current source code issues with Tobin, you are non-compliant. That also means that if you don't come back into compliance (by solving the problem with Tobin's commits) within 30 days of being notified by other contributors, they may also retract their grant. Make no mistake, I'm pretty sure that will happen.

@ everyone The TL;DR of this entire thing is that by his own actions, Feodor2 has now made it extremely difficult for himself to continue publishing MyPal and Centaury (and anything else he might want to publish based on UXP or earlier code bases).

[dmiranda12]

At most, but then not necessarily, you COULD add something like "modded from sweettooth's (to make up a name) previous modification of firefox-netscape code (or whatever) at ..." wherever sweettooth did so.

[dmiranda12]

"You should. The MPL is very clear in that it allows authors to rescind rights to people who do not adhere to the license. Feodor2 did not adhere to the license and within the terms of the license Tobin has retracted the right for Feodor2 to use his modifications." He doesn't have the right to do so.