What is the status for flashblock for Seamonkey?

[groze5858]

What is the status for flashblock for Seamonkey 2.30 and on?

[DanRaisch]

Since the extension no longer works for Firefox and hasn't been updated in more than 18 months it's unlikely that a version for SeaMonkey will be forthcoming anytime soon. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... lashblock/

[TheVisitor]

Flashblock was updated by Streetwolf - and works with Firefox. You could give the build a try, download/install from here:

https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=ab7fc1a1 ... MPm5rwTwSE

[patrickjdempsey]

That will not work in SeaMonkey. You need to run it through the Addon Converter:
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=2834855

See here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2885327

[groze5858]

Thank you for your help. This is where I usually get flashblock from http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ (I hope linking there is ok). What I did is download Flashblock 1.3.18 .xpi using Internet explorer and I did get it working though but per forum rules I don't think I am allowed to tell you how.

[groze5858]

DanRaisch

Am I allowed to upload the flashblock file that I modified to work with Seamonkey? It still being developed for Firefox like you said not for Seamonkey. How do I upload to AMO (I am a newbie on that)? I think that version I use belongs to Philip Chee, do I need to get his permission? Thank you for this info.

[LoudNoise]

You shouldn't post other people's work at AMO. First, if Phil wanted it posted there he would have done so. Second, you are not in the position to support it which would be expected.

[groze5858]

You shouldn't post other people's work at AMO. First, if Phil wanted it posted there he would have done so. Second, you are not in the position to support it which would be expected.

I had no idea, I was just trying to be helpful that is all.

This is not meant be rude or argumentative, my grammar is not that great do to a disability. I would like some clarification.

I guess I don't totally understand open source but I assumed you could modify any file as long as you give credit to the previous authors under the GPL. For example there are third party Mozilla builds based on the Gecko engine.

Edited to add this:
I think I figured it out, not all add-ons are open source, which I think is a little strange but that just my opinion.

[LoudNoise]

Btw, I didn't mean to sound harsh.

Yes, you can fork it if you want to do so. I was mistaken about the nature of the extension. I thought it was one of the extensions Phil converted for use in SeaMonkey and just hosted at his mozdev site. What I thought you wanted to do was simply upload it to AMO every time Phil made a change. That wouldn't be kosher.

If you are going to maintain it, you might want to touch bases with Phil and let him know you would like to continue developing it. This is more courtesy then anything else but will also give him someone to direct folks to if they contact him for support by mistake.

[patrickjdempsey]

I think I figured it out, not all add-ons are open source, which I think is a little strange but that just my opinion.

Well, the thing is that there are different levels of "open" and then there are other issues to consider:

You cannot assume that every extension available for Firefox is 100% open source. Many extensions have partially open licensing... for instance the code might be free but the name and the graphics might have a limited license (as is the case with Firefox itself). There are also some extensions that are completely closed. On the addons.mozilla.org website you can scroll to the bottom of an extension page and click "Version Information" and at the bottom of that there should be licensing information. If something is GPL or MPL with no restrictions you are mostly likely free to do what you want with it.

But that's only the *legal* aspect. In the Mozilla community, it's generally considered polite to attempt to contact an author and ask permission before taking over their work. It's due diligence. Most authors who have really abandoned their work are generally happy to hand it over to someone who is actually willing and able to do the hard work of keeping it working and to field user questions. Becoming the new maintainer/owner of an extension is a whole lot more work than just providing one patch to fix one problem... it's a big responsibility and most people providing "quick fixes" out there are not ready for that.

In order to host an abandoned extension on addons.mozilla.org, it generally requires changing the GUID to a unique one, fixing bugs that may have existed in the old version, and making a new name... adding "2" to the end of an extension is a common practice for new maintained versions. Extensions hosted on addons.mozilla.org are security screened and the code is checked by a human reviewer before they are allowed to go Public. Around here we generally don't like for people to post random hacked versions because A: the person doing the hacking may not be able to provide real "support" and B: with no security review there's no way to vet the safety or authenticity of a random download link. You might see long-time users here post such link, but they are only tolerated because those individuals have shown themselves to be trustworthy.

[groze5858]

patrickjdempsey

That issue has be solved but thank you anyways.

[patrickjdempsey]

Just an FYI.