<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>The Pale Moon redistribution license is very clear
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml">http://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml</a> . However, Jeremy Andrews
approached us to facilitate (re)introduction of Modern Solaris
(and flavors there of) support back into the Unified XUL Platform.</p>
<p>I understand how poor choice of words in the openbsd-wip github
issue may sour you. However, as Jeremy has been in charge of this
effort for a few months now and would be maintaining the packages
in-line with our various project licenses. I do not see how a
problem like the one at openbsd-wip would occur regardless of how
things were phrased then. He has already committed to maintaining
the support in UXP for Modern Solaris. So he would be responsible
for continued maintenance of a Pale Moon or Interlink package for
OpenIndiana.</p>
<p>He worked with us every step of the way to facilitate bringing
support to release level. He did all this because he believed in
both us and all of you. Then he was granted permission to use the
Official trademarked branding from Moonchild Productions and
Binary Outcast in order to bring Pale Moon and Interlink Mail
& News (and when release, Borealis Navigator) to OpenIndiana
users via your package system.</p>
<p>WE are not suggesting that we would be a sole replacement for
your Mozilla packages that you offer (and are stalled on) but I
believe some users may find us a good alternative. The person here
that is committed to providing packages is also providing the code
level support at the "upstream" projects for these applications.
He also has our confidence and support to do so. So there would be
quite a bit of coordination here.<br>
</p>
<p>BUT, that isn't what has happened this day. No, this day did not
turn out as hoped for by the young programmer. Something very
different happened. He, and by extension, all of us who work on
the Unified XUL Platform and the projects, Pale Moon included,
that build on it have been rejected out of hand. SIMPLY because of
some trumped up encounter with those who did not bother to ask for
permission, haven't spoken to us and outright reject intellectual
property rights and software licenses aside from their particular
chosen one. A situation I might add that isn't the same as this
one AND was quite a while ago now. Yet it is being treated as
such.<br>
</p>
<p>So here we are, I am writing to all of you because someone I have
come to know and who worked very hard to bring his chosen software
to his chosen OS for all to use and enjoy has been crushed. What
does this say about the Open Source community and more importantly
about people in general these days?</p>
<p>Thank you for your time,<br>
</p>
<p>Matt A. Tobin<br>
Commanding Officer<br>
Binary Outcast<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/11/2019 1:31 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:alpine.GSO.2.20.1912111152380.24745@scrappy.simplesystems.org">On
Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Volker A. Brandt wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Till Wegmüller writes:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I concur. Some politeness goes a long
way. This problem with the license
<br>
requirements however stems from firefox originally. Only that
in
<br>
firefox'es case they fought with the debian community and
lost. It seems
<br>
like the Palemoon community needs to have the same experience.
Sadly....
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
To me, the problem looks slightly different: The Pale Moon devs
insist
<br>
on having private copies of a huge number of libraries in their
source
<br>
tree. If a distro changes that to use the system version of
those libs
<br>
instead, the PM people consider that a license violation. IIRC
the
<br>
original Debian ./. Firefox dispute was about logos and icons.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't see a statement about that in the extensive license text.
It is clear that any modifications to executable and logo content
provided by Pale Moon are not allowed. I don't think that this
means that code independently compiled under the Mozilla license
is not allowed to be modified and distributed. Indeed, it must be
modified to use alternate branding and logos.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">It is understandable that OpenBSD does not
want apps to be using separate
<br>
non-audited and possibly outdated copies of system libraries.
<br>
<br>
The arrogant and high-handed way in which the PM people phrased
their
<br>
demands were no help either. They have not realized that they
are
<br>
driving users away, a very stupid thing to do.
<br>
<br>
Not sure if Jeremy should continue calling his build "Pale
Moon". Maybe
<br>
"New Moon" would be better, just to avoid sudden abuse coming
from the
<br>
PM people over some build flag.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Obviously, every trace of Pale Moon and standard logos, as well as
HTML style sheets are required to be changed. The name of the
distribution package can not include the phrase "Pale Moon".
<br>
<br>
To me, it seems like the many requirements are rather onerous and
it is thus not surprising that this software is not going anywhere
fast even though it does appear to offer the experience that
people used to enjoy from the original Mozilla (and later Mozilla
SeaMonkey after FireFox emerged).
<br>
<br>
Bob
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
oi-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:oi-dev@openindiana.org">oi-dev@openindiana.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev">https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>