Contributed 3rd Party Builds • Re: AppImage of Pale Moon available

Hopped on their Discord to see if I could clarify, which went south quick.

06:39]xdg-lawyer: @ivan-hc

https://github.com/Portable-Linux-Apps/ ... e/issues/1

I will be deleting the repo shortly, so heads up since palemoon has to be removed from AM now as well. [06:49]QaidVoid [::<>], : lmao.. They might think their browser is great.. [06:51]QaidVoid [::<>], : how come Firefox allows redistributing but this shit doesn't [::<>], [06:51]xdg-lawyer: yeah firefox distributes as a snap with ffmpeg bundled [06:51]xdg-lawyer: kek [06:57]QaidVoid [::<>], : I was pasting a roast. repo already gone.. [::<>], [06:57]xdg-lawyer: I said I will be deleting it xd [07:10]QaidVoid [::<>], : Time to write dwarfs slop. [07:14]QaidVoid [::<>], : Rust is the best language to write slop.. If it passes check, it mostly works.. [::<>], [07:29]xdg-lawyer: just gotta watchout to not flip the exit status xd [08:07]Wolfbeast: Hey guys, just poking my head in about Pale Moon. You have to understand that it's a licensing issue when bundling GPL binaries with other software. Mozilla should also be prohibited from distributing Firefox this way (unless they literally strip all GPL licensed things out of their AppImage) but I guess their lawyers don't care. [08:08]Wolfbeast: I wouldn't mind having package formats, but we're just trying to follow licensing proper. [08:09]xdg-lawyer: omg [08:09]xdg-lawyer: we didn't ship any additiona library in the appimage to start [08:09]xdg-lawyer: it also makes no sense given that mozilla distributes firefox as a snap with ffmpeg and other GPL software in it [08:10]Wolfbeast: Yeah they aren't allowed to do that [08:10]xdg-lawyer: kek [08:10]Wolfbeast: They are not allowed to relicense MPL licensed software as GPL. [08:10]xdg-lawyer: I believe you are confused with the static linking permissions of GPL [08:10]xdg-lawyer: but anyways, I don't have energy to deal with this [08:10]xdg-lawyer: the repo has been deleted already [08:10]Wolfbeast: Yeah you were trigger happy nuking it. [08:10]Wolfbeast: Pity [08:10]xdg-lawyer: that's what you wanted lol [08:11]QaidVoid [::<>], : license police are the annoying people [08:11]xdg-lawyer: also kinda insane to have a license that forbids appimage [08:11]xdg-lawyer: we didn't know this nonsense [08:11]Wolfbeast: But don't let this reflect on us as if we're being elitist. [08:11]xdg-lawyer: ???? [08:11]QaidVoid [::<>], : If you don't want redistribution, just close-source it. [08:11]xdg-lawyer: you want me to reinsate the repo now? [08:11]Wolfbeast: That's not how this works. @QaidVoid [08:13]QaidVoid [::<>], : The whole point of open source is "anyone can use, modify, and distribute the code for any purpose". [08:13]xdg-lawyer: I need an explanation behind this comment [08:13]Wolfbeast: That's up to you. I'm happy to give the OK on my side if you're not bundling GPL stuff in the AppImage. Then any relicensing risk is yours [08:14]xdg-lawyer: then why the fuck open an issue saying that the terms of service don't allow appimage??? [08:14]xdg-lawyer: sorry but it is impossible to work with people like this [08:15]Wolfbeast: Don't look at me, look at Stallman.

[::<>],The whole point of open source is "anyone can use, modify, and distribute the code for any purpose".

[08:16]Wolfbeast: Yes, but there is licensing for a reason. OS != PD [08:16]xdg-lawyer: alright get in contact with the FSF to damand mozilla and canonical if you think it is this way [08:16]xdg-lawyer: please leave us alone, we already complied with the request [08:18]Wolfbeast: Alright. I'll leave you alone. Just wanted to explain, and that it's not an arbitrary decision. Good luck with your efforts, feel free to reach out if and when you want to discuss anything.

Well, whatever. Typical crowd of "Open Source is Public Domain, screw licensing", seems like. I don't particularly want to deal with it.

They should read the GNU FAQ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... tarySystem Pretty clear IMHO.