The Pale Moon crew are a bunch of children:

https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86

Never used it more than to try it a few times, but sure as hell will not use it in the future, ever.

I don't see how this is any different from what Mozilla do. Their license also forbids you to distribute built versions of Firefox et al with official branding unless they themselves have OK'd the build. If you want to use your own config file and still distribute the result, you have to call it something different.

They do use some silly handles though, don't they!

I've always thought that involving the attitudes of developers as valid criteria for using or not using a program to be rather ridiculous.

To me, it's like not using mpv because of its developers, or Pulseaudio because of its originator.

If a program fills a need for me satisfactorily, then I will use that program.

I use mpv, Pulseaudio, and Palemoon (Yes, I have changed my mind about it, since DownThemAll doesn't work with Firefox 57+. It works well enough for my needs.)

Pale Moon developers (in particular the minion in that thread) can come across as arrogant, yes. Some people claim the same about me and my behaviour, so what's new. But they do have a point, that the Pale Moon brand has rules for redistribution. Nothing prevents you from using the un-branded code which will lead to a browser that calls itself New Moon and has a slightly different logo and artwork. It's still the same code, and you get the same functionality, and you can compile and re-distribute it all the way you like best.
If on the other hand you want to use their brand name and artwork in a package that you subsequently offer up for downloads by the public, then you have to play by their rules.

I do have a built-from-source package for Pale Moon in my repository, but I respected their brand and discussed my SlackBuild script before I released any binary to the public. Those discussions were not always friendly, but they were respectful, and I could convince them that even a binary Slackware package that does not follow their branding policy has its benefits. So, my palemoon Slackware package is fully accepted by Moonchild and everybody is happy.

FYI:
The Pale Moon code is derived/forked from Mozilla Firefox. Mozilla enforces an almost identical branding agreement for their Firefox browser. When Slackware switched from official re-packaged binaries to a source-build (this was when I was developing 64bit Slackware, and at the time there were no official 64bit binaries), I contacted Mozilla, discussed my mozilla-firefox.SlackBuild script, obtained Mozilla's written approval that Slackware was allowed to use the Firefox brand for its source-built packages, and the rest is history.
Nothing childish about it.

^ thanks for writing it up for me.
i just read all of this: https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86
people often seem to misunderstand the Free in FOSS.
There's a license, you have to comply. simple as that.
the rest is just ranting & flaming.

that is often said about anybody on the internet insisting on something that someone else does not agree with.

Not that it matters because the whole port has been pulled, but here is my :twocents:

The Pale Moon team has their rights as pointed out in their copyright.

BUT, from the outside looking in, the Pale Moon port for BSD was in it's infancy and being worked on and was not complete? So who's to say that in the end they wouldn't have changed the name to "New Moon" or whatever with modified icons etc.

I have known since I have started using Pale Moon that the Pale Moon team are a bunch of arrogant _____s who don't think that their poop doesn't stink. And I think that they need to bring themselves back down to earth and maybe start acting and talking like adults that are not so aggressive. I'm sure that a simple "Hey, you guys need to change this or that" would have led to a much more constructive discussion about the subject. They are pretty much the same way in their forums when anyone is trying to give them some "constructive criticism". They are instantly on the defense and not willing to listen to any other point of view other than their own.

I still use Pale Moon, and test driving Basilisk because IMO they are better and faster than Firefox or Waterfox or any other clone out there. But I rarely visit their forums anymore, not that I did a lot before, only when I had a problem and a few times recently after finding out about Basilisk because I know how they act and I don't put myself in those kind of toxic environments.

Maybe they just need to get laid, or they forgot the old adage, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

Openbsd was not violating their trademark because they were not distributing anything beyond a build script. The palemoon devs not only were rude, they ventured into the unacceptable territory of threatening to sue their users after only 3 hours.

Personally the deal breaker for me was and still is that they do not care to support any modern compilers.

Yes, that's the problem for me too. I need a modern browser for LFS, but both FF and webkit browsers like midori come with so many dependencies that I take fright. I'm presently running a build of PM that someone here gave me. I couldn't build it myself because its syntax isn't compatible with the up-to-date gcc that LFS uses. You need gcc-6 at the latest.

I believe Alien Bob has a slackbuild for gcc that you can use on a system whose main gcc is later. I'm going to try going down that route on my next LFS because I really like PM.

What? I read the thread, and that never happened.

You're right, I misread yesterday. Specifically wolfbeast ended a comment with the following.

And landryb replied with this implication.
Wolfbeast made no such specific claims, but landryb was right this escalated very quickly for really no good reason...

I agree the Palemoon guys were unnecessarily rude, but he did specifically address that comment and make it clear that he was not implying legal action.

I don't see that.
I take this to mean that wolfbeast did not actually say it, but he did not discount the possibility either. Immediately assuming wolfbeast intended to sue was wrong, but there are still a lot of weasel words left.

Edit:

And he continues.

Still not discounting the possibility, but again nothing was being redistributed here...

The OpenBSD guys closed the conversation on GitHub to everyone except the collaborators. They don't want further conversation about how to first look at the tools, then at the target code requirements, included if there is licensing issue, before stating to modify code, put it on a publicly accessible project site, and redistribute to others (developers and users). FOSS does not been free, and please don't start a flame war about FOSS and its meanings. FOSS has license rights, just like MPL and GPL and GPL2. As Slackware users we often overlook the license rights owned by the developer and simply use the software as if we have a right to use it however we please. In this case the OpenBSD developers were in the wrong in not only starting to modify the code, but also because they did re-distribute it to each other, even if they are only the developers. But even worse they caused a user to ask for help from the PaleMoon development team, who then said, hey stop you've violated a basic principle of the license and then caused us to spend time trying to support a user of something we didn't develop. I thought the initial message from PaleMoon development team was appropriate and necessary. The fact OpenBSD team lead won't acknowledge the license, with or without the primary owner, isn't even logical. But they did violate the license agreement and so PaleMoon had to let them know.

I use PaleMoon. I prefer it over Firefox. It is lighter in memory usage, faster in processing, complies with all the sites I visit, and as far as I can tell isn't monitoring my activity. It also is longer between releases, so I'm not wasting time every month with another patch update. It has excellent scores with HTML5/CSS and ACID1/2. AFAIK it has fewer sever security issues than the Firefox/Seamonkey code. It fits my needs, unless someone can detail or point me to a sever technical issue, I plan to use it as my preferred browser.

Necessary, yes. Appropriate? Not in the way it was worded, IMO. Instead of requesting that they comply with the license terms in a respectful way, they used forceful language such as "you WILL do this..." and doubled down on the rudeness when the BSD dev responded in kind.

I won't disagree with that. However, *neither* party responded in a professional (or even remotely nice) way which ends up making both of them look childish in a public discussion. These are not the ways we should have conversations with each other in the dev community. I understand that a lot of people follow the bad example put forth by Linus, but collaboration is *not* encouraged by petty arguments and harsh language.

I only recently tried Pale Moon after being turned off by the latest version of Firefox, and found PM wanting for my purposes. Now that I see the way their devs behave, I'm not encouraged to try it out any further.

I read the "redistribution" agreement for Pale moon:
http://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml

That license, which is basically a license to provide a package marked as Pale moon, can be reduced to a few words.

"Redistribution of source and binary packages marked with Pale moon without written consent of the author is prohibited."

To make sense of that write-up over modification exceptions to a distro maintainer, and operate on that alone is a minefield. What makes it worse, is that the agreement can be revised (i.e. revoked) at any time, without notice. So basically, section 8 is worthless, and that means OpenBSD had to ask permission, which they did not, and thankfully, will never do so.

I think distro maintainers will have it harder. Individual packagers (like Alien Bob) will probably find it easier to ask and obtain permission over modifications because they won't really understand the reason anyway, and you have to promise to support the package. But if you get any user that goes to moonchild (that's his name? seriously? Edit: see below) over a problem, and you made a change to it, well just be prepared for a takedown notice.

I can't imagine any distro capable of really supporting Pale moon in name, without zipping up the official binaries. That's what they want, but that's not a method I like seeing in distro space.


Edit:
His name may be very well that translated to English
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/...ry/112469.html
(Also interesting comment there... but I won't discuss the trademark question here)