An Argument in my howto

[Kilz]

The problems is this post, and this is an effort to avoid more of the same.
I have been writing a howto/scripts for installing 32bit firefox and plugins into amd64. In an effort to improve the howto/scripts I had been testing Swiftfox. Swiftfox is a fork of firefox and as so coverd under the mpl/gpl/lgpl tri license.
I went to the Swiftfox site to ask if there were any stipulations like credit or other files that needed to be distributed with the .deb file I was planing on making. At which point the person working on Swiftfox tried to block me from doing it. To me it looked like he was more interested in his traffic and google income. Knowing that I'm allowed to under the licenses its distributed under I posted back saying I could.
I thought the discussion would stay on that forum. I made the .deb file and install script. posted it to my howto. The person working on swiftfox has an account here named Stirling. Stirling posted here amd here saying my files were not "official" At wich point I posted this reply to both. The problem was then made worse by this problem post.
The problem is that my howto wasn't meant to be a discussion on distribution. This to me is Thread Drifting/Steering. I never wanted this argument, especially in my howto. I hope it ends, but I have a feeling it wont. Rather Stirling could have posting here in the resolution section, he has chosen to post in help threads and imply I'm doing something underhanded or a security risk.

[Kilz]

He is now playing games and has posted something to the realution center. http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=232355
I have contacted Mozilla and his interpitation of the license is wrong. http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewto...419479#2419479
I am waiting on an email for official conformation of this.

[Kilz]

You might want to do a md5sum on the .deb file he is saying im redistrubiting.


md5sum swiftfox-1.5.0.6-3_amd64.deb
019556afd8986f14a06f0fd094f11381 swiftfox-1.5.0.6-3_amd64.deb
md5sum swiftfox_1.5.0.6-1ubuntu_athlon64.deb
607d6a3493fe1c611c8af25e963c444a swiftfox_1.5.0.6-1ubuntu_athlon64.deb

[Kilz]

You might want to do a md5sum on the .deb file he is saying im redistrubiting.


md5sum swiftfox-1.5.0.6-3_amd64.deb
019556afd8986f14a06f0fd094f11381 swiftfox-1.5.0.6-3_amd64.deb
md5sum swiftfox_1.5.0.6-1ubuntu_athlon64.deb
607d6a3493fe1c611c8af25e963c444a swiftfox_1.5.0.6-1ubuntu_athlon64.deb

Here is a link to the deb file I was distrubting
home.comcast.net/~ubuntu64user/swiftfox-1.5.0.6-3_amd64.deb
I have removed it while waiting on information from the Mozilla foundation.

[ubuntu-geek]

Ok, please keep us informed.

[Kilz]

Ok, please keep us informed.

Thank you ubuntu-geek for posting here. I have faith in this community. Ubuntu has never done me wrong. I in turn will do no harm or cause the community problems.
It looks like the MPL allows the Jason to abuse the sprit of foss. He can more or less steal the firefox code. He can take it, and complie it, then restrict the redistribution of the binaries he creates.
But he is in violation of section 3 of the same license he uses against others. He is not making the source avaiable for download by the same mechanism that he distributes the binaries.
As soon as he dose, I will be compiling it and offering my binaries to whoever wants them for free under the gpl. I will also be trying to get them included in the repositories.
You see my pourpose of offering the .deb file was to help Ubuntu users. He wasnt willing to offer a .deb file untill I made one. He was set against it. Its all about money from google adds and getting more people to visit his site. If he was really about helping people he would try and get his .deb file in the official repositories.
I have removed the deb files for swiftfox, but he has pissed me off. I will be writing every Mozilla email address untill he complies with the licens he used against me. I will post to each and every post I see mention Swiftfox the underhanded tricks Jason pulls.

[Kilz]

An interesting turn of events has happened. While I still dont have the source to compile the code. The orignal tarball I have is coverd under the MPL. He didnt change the license yet. The mpl says he can change the licens but he has to distribute it with the binaries. So the ones I have are coverd under the MPL. This was pointed out on the Mozilla forum.
Hopefully by the time the next firefox version comes out he will have the source code available. Im sure with all the email I will be writing they will be looking at his actions.