Home › Forums › Other

Foxyproxy license

Fri, 05/15/2009 - 19:01 — jazzva

Hello,

We are maintaining Foxyproxy package in Ubuntu repositories. The license comment:

"PLEASE NOTE:

The FoxyProxy name, logo, graphics, art work, website, styles, and documentation are proprietary works and are neither open-source nor free."

went unnoticed until recently, when we were planning to update the package to version 2.9. It is unclear from the notice if the redistribution of the mentioned contents is allowed, so could you tell me if it is?

If it isn't, is there any easy way to debrand Foxyproxy (e.g. strip proprietary contents)?

Thanks in advance,
Saša Bodiroža

‹ Pattern for non-port-80/443 sites hELP mE ›
Sat, 05/16/2009 - 22:55 — ericjung

jazzva wrote: It is unclear

jazzva wrote:

It is unclear from the notice if the redistribution of the mentioned contents is allowed, so could you tell me if it is?

I hereby grant you full rights to redistribute all non-free aspects of FoxyProxy on the Ubuntu repositories as long as the original code of FoxyProxy is unpatched or otherwise altered. If there is a reason you need to patch or alter FoxyProxy, please let me know and we can discuss that as a possibility without you needing to fork.

If you need other permissions or other help, please let me know. I am a huge fan of Ubuntu and use it every day!!

Eric Jung
Author
FoxyProxy

Tue, 05/19/2009 - 09:28 — jazzva

Hello Eric, Thanks for your

Hello Eric,

Thanks for your response and willingness to cooperate on this issue :).

I think the license to redistribute non-free artwork is fine to keep software in universe (instead of moving it to multiverse), because that sounds like the case with Mozilla artwork. I'll have to check with other developers to see if that is correct.

Though, the part of your post that mentions restriction of modification might push the software to multiverse (universe contains only free software, which includes the right to redistribute, modify, etc.). May I suggest the deal that we forward our modifications back here, so you can consider them for inclusion in the main branch? So far we had only one modification, which was needed to get Foxyproxy working [1] [2] [3].

[1] http://foxyproxy.mozdev.org/drupal/content/tries-use-usrlibfirefox-304fo...
[2] https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/foxyproxy/+bug/279466
[3] http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~jazzva/firefox-extensions/foxyproxy.ubuntu/...

Wed, 05/20/2009 - 19:53 — ericjung

ok

jazzva wrote:

May I suggest the deal that we forward our modifications back here, so you can consider them for inclusion in the main branch?

OK. That's a good idea, but the contributions can't break FoxyProxy on other operating systems.

jazzva wrote:

So far we had only one modification, which was needed to get Foxyproxy working [1] [2] [3].

[1] http://foxyproxy.mozdev.org/drupal/content/tries-use-usrlibfirefox-304fo...
[2] https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/foxyproxy/+bug/279466
[3] http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~jazzva/firefox-extensions/foxyproxy.ubuntu/revision/25

Thanks. I'll put this into FoxyProxy 2.9.1, assuming it doesn't break other operating systems.

Eric

Wed, 05/20/2009 - 20:17 — jazzva

Great, thanks :). Also, can

Great, thanks :).

Also, can you put your permission for redistribution inside license file in the next version of FoxyProxy, so we can publish the extension to our repositories?

Thanks in advance,
Saša Bodiroža

Sun, 05/31/2009 - 20:18 — ericjung

Hi Saša, Can you please

Hi Saša,

Can you please review these two changes?

1. Amendment to the LICENSE file with the information you requested. Is this OK for universe instead of multiverse? (You prefer universe to multiverse, right?)

2. Changes you requested here in order to support application-wide installation of FoxyProxy. I have tested to ensure no problems are caused when upgrading from FoxyProxy 2.9 to trunk; everything is OK.

http://fisheye2.atlassian.com/changelog/foxyproxy/?cs=386

Kind regards,
Eric Jung

Tue, 05/19/2009 - 20:49 — JesperHansen

I personally dont understand

I personally dont understand why Ubuntu would want to have Firefox addons in their repositories and not just link to them at AMO since this provides better updates.

Tue, 05/19/2009 - 22:38 — jazzva

Reason for extensions in repositories

JesperHansen wrote:

I personally dont understand why Ubuntu would want to have Firefox addons in their repositories and not just link to them at AMO since this provides better updates.

The reason for this is to be able to install extensions system-wide. The downside of this approach is the one you mentioned. We are working on automatic packaging of the extensions, which would auto-update the package in repositories when newer version of some extension is found.