Make it installable as a WebExtension

[thom4parisot]

Works in Chrome, Firefox and Opera without {Grease,Tamper}Monkey thiny installed.

[GuGuss]

@oncletom Interesting. I didn't know it could be made installable without packaging it as a Chrome extension or a Firefox add-on.

[thom4parisot]

@GuGuss you have indeed to use the Load unpacked extension… button and aim at a folder containing a manifest.json file to make it work :-) Signed extensions can be installed outside of the store but it is a bit tedious.

[thom4parisot]

Hello,

I wanted to know if you were still interested by the proposal? I'm happy to make some changes and better provide docs on how to install the extension if people would like to install it on their own.

Also, would you be up to distribute it on the Chrome Web Store and on the Firefox Extensions Marketplace?

[tobika]

Hi, there was a project some years(?) ago that provided easy download options for arte videos, they had to shut down due to a legal demand from arte http://floriancrouzat.net/arte/

I think the reason this project doesn't have a problem for now is because everybody executes the script from his/her own browser without using an official central distribution store.

Would be interesting to know what others think :-)

Update : In general I think it would be great to propose this script to a wider audience that doesn't know how to install the script in it's current form.

[Bumbadawg]

I concur to your point of view @tobika.

Hoy @oncletom, WebExt would be cool to have but on the legal side of things,

1. Chrome addons get censored on request or automatically.
2. Firefox addons can get censored on request. Although note VideoDownload Helper is violating Mozilla policy and still is around AMO.

Mozilla Policy

• 5.d : US export laws and regulation agreement
• 7.b : Mozilla reserves its right to remove according to its policy (this script should not falter on this one) We could try to have it WebExt'd on AMO without much issue. But on Google Store it'll be easily taken down by request.

NB: talking legal side of things, note GitHub is now a property of Microsoft, reserving itself the right to erase this git repository if measures to take it down are demanded from any company. In case there's a need to move out, we move to/self-host with Gitlab/Gitea.

[Bumbadawg]

@oncletom about the licence you chose, i beg to differ for the litigation clause and would prefer GPLv3 as it doesn't imply litigation initiation like MPL does.

[thom4parisot]

Yeah, I guess I asked a drawer-like question.

This pull request is about making the codebase compatible with installing it as a browser extension (as a Developer).

It opens the question of channel distribution—which I seem to understand is highly risky. Although the extension "just" uncovers data exposed within the HTML of a page.

As far as I remember, I think I added the LICENCE file because it is the license of one of the polyfill I embedded in the pull request (via http://npmjs.com/webextension-polyfill, https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill and ultimately https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill/blob/master/LICENSE).

If we require this code via an external mechanism (npm for example), then I guess the license file is not required because we don't distribute it.

If the Arte-7-Downloaded is GPL, I don't know if we can embed any MPL code—my hunch is "no" but I'm really bad at undertanding license implications so maybe it's actually doable.

[Bumbadawg]

Although the extension "just" uncovers data exposed within the HTML of a page.

There's nothing alarming indeed.

About the licence, currently, this script isn't under any licence. The fact you commit a LICENCE file enforces the conditions it claims. If we ever licence this script, MPL is not the best copyleft licence imho, but that's a secondary talk.

I guess the license file is not required because we don't distribute it.

A licence is used to claim what you can and cannot do with a property (source code in this case). https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/ Therefore it's not only about distribution, but also its use in general, its modification, etc. (usus, fructus, abusus in the french law).

School case: for instance, if tomorrow GitHub (Microsoft) decides to remove and keep our code for themselves and there is no licence, they'll get all the rights to own it, do what they want with our code. A licence enforces the property (code) to be liable or not under some laws.

[Bumbadawg]

If the Arte-7-Downloaded is GPL, I don't know if we can embed any MPL code—my hunch is "no" but I'm really bad at undertanding license implications so maybe it's actually doable.

If a MPL 2.0 code is inside a GPL 2.0+ code, the GPL prevails. Therefore you'd be forced to copyleft all the including project, and not just your piece of code under MPL. So if you have

• 1.js under MPL
• 2.js under GPL
• 3.js under copyright.

1.js and 3.js will become GPL.

[Bumbadawg]

Hi @oncletom , i didn't pull your code but added what you proposed differently (making the script a WebExt). Therefore i added you in the contributors list. I signed a .xpi (firefox) and have an AMO page waiting to be validated in the meantime. I made a svg icon from the 2017 Creative Commons Arte logo from Wikipedia. I tested on firefox/chromium with both as a script and as an addon.

As for the license, i forgot to see there was a LICENSE file already commited from the initial commit (GPLv3) which is perfect =)

Again, thanks for your participation!

=> Closing this PR.

[thom4parisot]

Fantastic, your take on it is even simpler. Thank you so much :-)