What is wrong with Tobin the fat jew? he is so arrogant

>It's filled with security holes because it relies on custom homebrewed forks of outdated versions of common shared libraries/utilities like sqlite as well.
that's a lie. If anything Pale Moon doesn't run on shared libraries like many people would want
>Are you really gonna trust a 2 man team to maintain all that legacy code by themselves?
not an argument even if it was true. Many people use searx and OpenNIC which are projects run by 2 basement dwellers

the only issue is he wants the official branding
he could remove the logo and release his build called Fire Moon or something else

...

Yes, he wants to use the name that people will actually find.
And he has the right to do so.
Unlike Firefox, PM's branding is not protected by a trademark.

getpocket.com/blog/2017/11/introducing-pocket-recommendations-in-firefox-quantum/

Quotebrowser > Text browser >everything else >Icecat > Not browsing the web

Of course pocket can be disabled and other defaults but that wasn't the point if you followed the reply chain

>that wasn't the point if you followed the reply chain
MY BOTNET IS SUPERIOR TO YOUR BOTNET

Basically
Even when properly configured to not be a botnet

>Many people use searx and OpenNIC which are projects run by 2 basement dwellers
A browser is infinitely more complex than running a dns server or a web search frontend.

Zero clue why anyone even wants to produce 'officail' branded binaries for these cocksuckers anyway.

Attached: 1234.png (1758x74, 17K)

technically, according to his twisted interpretation of his license, palememe shouldn't even be on any other distro besides the ones he builds and maintains packages for himself.

So if anything, we should be egging him on to get rid of PM from the AUR and various other repositories, to help him dig his own grave faster.

>most people here hate them because they are right-wing
this is the first time I'm hearing about this. I thought most people hated them because they're furry pedo assholes.

>it relies on custom homebrewed FORKS [...] of [otherwise normally] shared libraries
>If anything Pale Moon doesn't run on shared libraries
can you read? You're literally saying the same thing as that user. And that DOESN'T make it more secure. The whole point is that shared libraries can patch bugs independently of your software, so not using shared libraries is a liability.

>comparing a meta search engine/scraper and DNS server to a full featured browser
you do understand those are on two totally different levels of complexity right?

>he wants to use the name that people will actually find.
Call it palememe, and put in the package description that its a palemoon rebranding because the devs are fucking idiots.

Cuck Moon seems to take their branding very seriously. A thread from yesterday: here they're assholes ti bsd people.

github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86

What's the best rebranded name? palememe? furryfox? icemoon?

Hehe
forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=16504

Attached: 1521853540525.png (413x174, 33K)

forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=18805#p138509
>"Your Browser, Your Way"
>Your personal likes and dislikes cannot be a factor in this
kek

>develop a browser
>retards keep modifying it for stupid reasons so it breaks and users come to you to complain since it's using your branding
>tell retards to either build it the proper and correct way so it doesn't break, or remove your branding so users come to them instead of you to whine about it
>retards get all uppity about not being able to modify something without taking responsibility for the modifications
I'd get snippy with these idiots too. They're clearly violating the provided license and then they have the gall to claim the main developer is being rude by telling them to stop

>You shall obey
go away moonchild, nobody wants your bullshit here

>thinking you're allowed to just completely disregard software licenses
>yeah I know I'm breaking the law but I won't stop unless you ask nicely
What an awful millennial mindset

what license

palemoon.org/redist.shtml

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-04-08 at 2.56.29 PM.png (1174x273, 136K)

>doesn't touch software directly at all - only distributes a build script he wrote himself
>thinks his software license applies

he's using the same damn license as every other Firefox fork dipshit. And no other project, not even big momma Mozilla, are anywhere near as autistic about that shit.

What that furfag is trying to do, is run a proprietary browser project, but can't because he's obligated to open his code due to basing his shit off Firefox, which is licensed under the MPL. So obviously there's gonna be misunderstandings, since he hasn't made his license reflect the shit he actually wants it to do. As it is now, his license wouldn't stand up in court for any of the shit he's trying to use it for. Just like how big companies try to shove in a ton of dubious clauses into their EULAs that don't stand up in court.

Not that I support trying to port that shit browser anyway, people should just let it die already. Can't trust such retarded developers to produce sane code.

Your browser, your way. Unless you want to install an extension we don't like

Attached: PalememeForcesAds.png (1356x1236, 334K)

dude just remove the official branding lmao

Attached: 2fva.jpg (1280x720, 29K)

>he's using the same damn license as every other Firefox fork dipshit
His distribution license was linked in and it's clearly not the same one as "every other firefox fork" since it mentions him by name.

>his license wouldn't stand up in court for any of the shit he's trying to use it for
His license would absolutely stand up in court and is perfectly compatible with the MPL. His branding resources are his intellectual property, and he can restrict their redistribution however he wishes. Note that his license does not restrict how you use the source code, but only under what terms you are allowed to use his branding.

Yes, when you create something you get to dictate how that particular thing is used. It doesn't matter that it works within a much larger project because he's only dictating the terms under which you can use the parts he created himself. You're perfectly welcome to strip away all the shit pale moon added, including the build scripts and branding assets, and do whatever you want with it and he can't stop you. If you don't remove his shit first though, you can be redistributing his intellectual property in a way he hasn't licensed you to do, which is illegal.

I know Jow Forums prefers to live in their own little worlds where everything works the way they want it to, but the real world has rules dictating how this kind of thing works, and they allow the pale moon dev to do this.

The creator doesn't have any legal claims whatsoever if I don't touch his software.

The BSD guy basically did something like this:
#!/bin/sh
# palemoon.sh
# LICENSED UNDER WHATEVER I WANT
# FUCK YOU FURRY SHITS

wget palemoon.org/palememe.exe

Palemoon's license (which is only backed by copyright) simply does not apply to it at all.

It's a different story for Firefox. Because Firefox is trademark protected.
So they can enforce rules on how you use their trademark.

>script that fetches a binary
Execution of that script falls under binary distribution, and is governed by the terms of binary distribution in its license.
As it stands though, that script is perfectly allowed by the pale moon license. You can fetch an official binary on whatever platform and use it just fine. What you can't do is fetch the source assets and use them to make your own modified build while still labeling it as an official PaleMoon build.

>Palemoon's license (which is only backed by copyright)
Literally all licenses are "backed by copyright". What the fuck else do you think provides the legal grounds for licensing? Pixie dust?

>simply does not apply to it at all.
It doesn't apply to the creation and distribution of that script, but it does apply to the execution of it. Executing a script that fetches copyrighted resources and uses them binds you by the same licensing as fetching those resources and using them yourself.

>Firefox is trademark protected. So they can enforce rules on how you use their trademark.
That would be a valid point if this were about use of a trademark, but people are using unique assets that are the intellectual property of the pale moon developer in ways that he has not allowed them. Someone else can start up their own software project and call it PaleMoon because the name isn't trademarked, but they still can't directly lift pale moon's unique assets

>Execution of that script falls under binary distribution
But not the script itself. Which is the only thing he distributes.

>What the fuck else do you think provides the legal grounds for licensing? Pixie dust?
A driver's license is backed by copyright?

>but it does apply to the execution of it
No. Because the execution happens on someone's private computer that is not redistributed. Copyright doesn't apply since there's no redistribution happening.

>That would be a valid point if this were about use of a trademark,
The whole thing is about the name you retard.
Have you not followed it at all?
They threatened the guy just because he called it palemoon. Not because of any assets.
He didn't redistribute neither code nor assets of Pale Moon.

>A driver's license is backed by copyright?
Are you being stupid on purpose?

>No. Because the execution happens on someone's private computer that is not redistributed. Copyright doesn't apply since there's no redistribution happening.
Do you actually think that copyright doesn't apply to private individuals? So you can just violate copyright whenever you want as long as you do it yourself? You're ridiculously naive.

>He didn't redistribute neither code nor assets of Pale Moon.
Completely false.

>Do you actually think that copyright doesn't apply to private individuals? So you can just violate copyright whenever you want as long as you do it yourself? You're ridiculously naive.
Yes, private copies are allowed and protected by law.
It wouldn't really be enforceable anyway.

>Completely false.
It's true, check out the old revision in his github.
Zero PM assets.

>Execution of that script falls under binary distribution, and is governed by the terms of binary distribution in its license.
that's not for you to decide, nor is it what the actual license says (see point 8-b), and is literally why it was mentioned that their license wouldn't stand up in court. A build script isn't a binary, it's literally an interpreted text file that is used to produce a binary.

Furthermore, it's not clear enough by legal standards what the license means when it says:
>You must not reconfigure the build system or browser preferences beyond what is necessary to produce the browser on the target operating system.
from a legal perspective, that's highly ambiguous, especially in the case of systems that enforce the use of certain build configurations in order to be included as ports/packages at all. Like the case of F-droid, where the only requirement was that the code had to be built on their infrastructure:
gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroiddata/merge_requests/260

forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=5772

forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=10222

And similarly, OpenBSD has a strict policy of using OpenBSD's internal libraries when building packages, leading to this ambiguous fiasco:
forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=18256

github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86

lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2018-February/112455.html

freebsd.1045724.x6.nabble.com/FreeBSD-Palemoon-branding-violation-td6237210i20.html

The license moonchild has now is nowhere near explicit enough to legally cover all these edge cases, therefore it wouldn't stand up in court.

>A build script isn't a binary
Your hypothetical equivalent script in directly downloads a hypothetical binary. It is a means of distributing a binary. It does not build anything.

>Furthermore, it's not clear enough by legal standards what the license means when it says:
>>You must not reconfigure the build system or browser preferences beyond what is necessary to produce the browser on the target operating system.
>from a legal perspective, that's highly ambiguous
The license resolves the ambiguity elsewhere with the condition that interpretation of the above clause can be interpreted at the discretion of the pale moon developer. It's a shitty license that reaches much further than it should, but it does hold up.

>The license moonchild has now is nowhere near explicit enough to legally cover all these edge case
The license moonchild has now definitely has a bunch of vague and useless restrictions, but its insistence that the interpretation of all such restrictions are up to the sole discretion of MoonChild actually make it perfectly enforcable, though they also make it impossible to be sure you're complying with.
>Contributed builds with official branding are subject to a screening process, may be accepted or rejected, may be re-screened at a later time, and may have their endorsement for use of official branding removed at any time if there is any reason to do so, in Moonchild's sole discretion, from which point forward redistribution of the officially-branded build(s) in question is no longer allowed.
Licenses that let the developer change their mind at any time about how you can use something suck, but they are legally enforceable. Handle them by not using the software and not being bound by its license, not by pretending the law works differently.

>Your hypothetical equivalent script in directly downloads a hypothetical binary. It is a means of distributing a binary. It does not build anything.
I'm pretty sure that user's example was a joke, because that's not how bsd ports work. They strictly fetch the source code, patch it if necessary, and build the final binary on the user's system. It works basically like gentoo if you're more familiar with that.

>Handle them by not using the software and not being bound by its license
agreed, but that's a separate discussion altogether.

>not by pretending the law works differently
eh, software licensing is still too new and untested in the legal system to be able to say stuff like that with any confidence. Copyleft licenses have a pretty dubious track record in the courts for example:
zdnet.com/article/linux-beats-internal-legal-threat/

landley.net/talks/ohio-2013.txt

lwn.net/Articles/478308/

so all I'm saying is that if I were moonchild, I'd make my shit a lot more explicit to be safe, because I would not trust the courts to just automatically go with my wishes based on what the license says now at all.

as for package maintainers however: you dumbfucks should all treat software with convoluted novelty licenses like this as if it were radioactive. Not worth the risk. Stick to simple vanilla licenses that can't bite you in the ass later.