26 Reply by zapper

  • zapper
  • zapper
  • Hyper Cyber
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2017-10-18
  • Posts: 1,075

Re: UXP walking down a narrow path and restricting freedom?

throgh wrote:

midori is a candidate for being removed sooner or later (points above in one of the earlier postings). Perhaps it is a way to work more onto otter-browser? Will look into the point about gst-libav also when the others are finished right away.

Thanks for the UXP-link! big_smile


No worries, btw,  the package integration thread  has one new addition of request, an extremely simple one, I might add.

HyperbolaBSD: The Future of Secure Libre Lightweight Operating Systems!

27 Reply by throgh

  • throgh
  • throgh
  • Package Development and Community Coordinator
  • Offline
  • From: Planet Earth
  • Registered: 2017-12-28
  • Posts: 2,924

Re: UXP walking down a narrow path and restricting freedom?

Well, interesting insights from the palemoon-forum, nothing secret. But well? Speaking right for the authors - or better demonstrate their perspectives:

(...) Being allowed to use source code written by others is a privilege, not a right. (...)

(Source: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.ph … 60#p220560)

His machine sounds like a good candidate for the scrap heap maybe. I just love how all these gnu**** are totally willing to just take and whore out some alt build they created without any regard to licensing or trademarks like they own it.

(Source: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.ph … 59#p220759)

Especially the second one makes me really sad, but the first is also not the nicest one. Do we really speak about technical emancipation and respect? And please: For sure I care with respect for the rights of authors, but treating the users and different forks the same is also caring. sad
Besides: I have removed the harsh wording from the second quote as I won't transport this language and wording right here and please keep it that way! Besides that there are for sure other insights within the first posting to be shared - otherwise it would be unfair and incorrect from myself. But the sentence itself leaves questions and in the end makes other statements earlier strange looking as the so-called consequences are more or less for all forks ahead, the UXP-project driven away from transparent insights.

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!

28 Reply by HarvettFox96 (edited by HarvettFox96 2021-10-11 14:42:43)

  • HarvettFox96
  • HarvettFox96
  • Hyper User
  • Offline
  • From: Siay, Zam. Sibugay, PH
  • Registered: 2017-09-12
  • Posts: 67

Re: UXP walking down a narrow path and restricting freedom?

I have bad feeling about this. PM devs don't care anymore as they're just incompetent and rude.

29 Reply by zapper

  • zapper
  • zapper
  • Hyper Cyber
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2017-10-18
  • Posts: 1,075

Re: UXP walking down a narrow path and restricting freedom?

HarvettFox96 wrote:

I have bad feeling about this. PM devs don't care anymore as they're just incompetent and rude.

Yes, well if its a problem, otter browser is available and we can implement features like a per application script blocker or w/e directly into it.

HyperbolaBSD: The Future of Secure Libre Lightweight Operating Systems!

30 Reply by andyprough

  • andyprough
  • Guest

Re: UXP walking down a narrow path and restricting freedom?

throgh wrote:

Well, interesting insights from the palemoon-forum, nothing secret. But well? Speaking right for the authors - or better demonstrate their perspectives:

(...) Being allowed to use source code written by others is a privilege, not a right. (...)

(Source: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.ph … 60#p220560)

This is the first time I've taken to reading any of the arguments on palemoon's forums, but I did read through moonchild's response that you linked to here. If he's correct when he says

"2 years later we found that he was still not complying with the license and not providing source code forms of the browser binaries he was (and apparently still is?) publishing. Second violation for the very same thing"

then that is a serious violation, and the palemoon devs may be in the right for denying that developer access to their work.

31 Reply by throgh

  • throgh
  • throgh
  • Package Development and Community Coordinator
  • Offline
  • From: Planet Earth
  • Registered: 2017-12-28
  • Posts: 2,924

Re: UXP walking down a narrow path and restricting freedom?

Yes, especially therefore I've said it would be unfair not to mention that there are other arguments. Besides I don't see the access as "privilege" more than a right when we are going onto technical emancipation. Meaning: The user has the absolute right to decide how a package and application is running, which one and which not. But the developers of behind Palemoon also did the same they have said being a violation before: Now there is no insight within development, just snapshots at a given time - which in fact is the reason of serious problems and notes within here. smile

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!

32 Reply by andyprough (edited by andyprough 2021-10-11 18:47:45)

  • andyprough
  • Guest

Re: UXP walking down a narrow path and restricting freedom?

throgh wrote:

But the developers of behind Palemoon also did the same they have said being a violation before: Now there is no insight within development, just snapshots at a given time - which in fact is the reason of serious problems and notes within here. smile

Good point. I wonder if their behavior in this regard is worse than that of RedHat in their obfuscated releasing of RHEL binaries in order to try and thwart the efforts of Oracle and others from copying their packages. I'm thinking RedHat's behavior is probably worse, but I'm not well-read enough to know for sure.

33 Reply by throgh

  • throgh
  • throgh
  • Package Development and Community Coordinator
  • Offline
  • From: Planet Earth
  • Registered: 2017-12-28
  • Posts: 2,924

Re: UXP walking down a narrow path and restricting freedom?

Red Hat is doing because of different points, most within ignorance for sure. I won't say that the developers behind Palemoon are compared within behaviour worse or not. More or less: It stays ignorant and damages in a whole the way freedom should be implemented: For the users, for all beings. To have a generic choice, to have the device working but with the own freedom of choice in a whole. And for sure within the respect of any consistent hardware and more points to come - only because having more memory does not mean the applications and libraries should be driven to absolute bad performance. But in general: It seems this is the way to go and that's a big problem to come, being even there already. sad

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!