Discussion of third-party/unofficial Firefox/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey builds.
I have a question and Im hoping someone here can help me.
The question is, can someone take the Firefox code, compile it, give it a new name, then stop me from distributing it?
The problem is that I wanted to make a .deb file for Swiftfox. Swiftfox is basicly a optimised compile of Firefox for various processors. http://getswiftfox.com/ . As I understand the terms of the MPL/GPL/LGPL tri license he can distribute the code/application but must give me the same license and make the code avaiable. Can I be blocked from distributing the Swiftfox builds of Firefox? Can he stipulate that he is the only one who can distribute it? As I understand it he cant.
If it is still entirely GPL, he can't.
(Don't think I'm an expert on this)
-Firefox is trilicensed: LGPL/GPL/MPL. He gets a choice of which he wants to follow.
-He chose MPL, which says that the source must be covered by the MPL, but he gets to choose which license binaries are under
-His binaries are licensed under the MPL, which allows redistribution
Essentially, when he says the only thing he has to provide is MPL'd source, he's right. But he's also providing MPL binaries, so you can redistribute.
So in other words, he has to be distributing it with non gpl code, code that is separate from Firefox in a larger work? Am I also correct in believing that if he distributed the application to me under the gpl/mpl anything as of now what he distributed is covered under those licenses?
Yes that was the discussion I had with him. I was trying to find out if there were any credits or other things he would like added. You are more of an expert than I am. But he is trying to restrict me, If I write to the Mozilla.org address and it turns out he is violating the license by restricting me, is it possible that he could lose the rights the license grants him?
I don't see why you'd have to add credits. If he can distribute it as is under the MPL, so can you.
More than likely he'd just start abiding by the license. But I suppose it could happen.
If you want to be sure about what I've told you (and I'm not at all sure), ask Gerv.
Thanks I just wrote him.
According to Gerv he can restrict people. Thats sad. Someone can take Firefox code, Just compile it, rename it. Then restrict people in any way they want. But Swiftfox is still in violation of the MPL section 3. There is noplace on his site that has the source avaiable for download and download is how he distributes the binary.
I knew he can, but I'm just wondering what constitutes restricting people. Does him saying so on a forum constitute restriction, or does he have to say so in the binary (the binary ships with a MPL license).
Anyway, is there anything stopping you from compiling it yourself?
Thank you,, I believe he would have to make license that says its resticting redistibution and distribute it with the binaries. As it is I have the binary package he released under the mpl. That license should cover that file I downloaded.
Nothing is stoping me from compiling other than he is violating the license he is useing against me. The source isnt avaiable on the site. Acording to section 3 of the mpl he should be making the source avaiable by the same means as he is distributing the bianary. I have a sinking feeing this delay is so he can sabatoge the source code.
Believe it or not Kilz I do have a life outside of Swiftfox. I have other responsibilities to attend to before I am able to get to the machine with the code on it. Why don't you take a chill pill and quit the flame war you are raging.
I don't know this other guy from Adam, but I see no reason for making this sort of speculative slur on a public forum, other than spitefulness.
You are coming across on this thread, quite frankly, as the last person on Earth who I would ever download anything from.
Just my £0.02.
You are the one taking FOSS code and changing the license to restict people. You have posted to the Ubuntu forum to have my links removed because it violates a license you didnt even distribute with the files. You have been distributing the binaries without the source in violation of the license for a long time. Why dont you just comply with the requirements now. I see no exception for a delay in the MPL. After all you have had months to do it.
Why dont you just do the right thing and let the code and binaries be free? You got the code for free. Why not get the .deb files you made into the universe repoitories? Why make people come to your site and restrict a post on the Ubuntu forum of mine? Could it be that you are to worried about clicks on a google advertisment?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest