LibreFox has moved #125
Comments
|
LibreVixen (female fox). Or if Mozilla's still bothered by that, then maybe LibreHawk. Name's the least important though - should revive the project first. |
|
Vixen sounds nice don't know about LibreHawk 'should revive the project first' |
|
Keep in mind that there are Firefox forks, like Waterfox or Palemoon for a long time already |
|
Which is why we need @intika to update us on the status of things. We could come up with alternate names, but we need to know what the issues are. In my opinion, an issue with naming is unlikely because as @Serkan-devel said, there are other similarly named forks. Unfortunately, we aren't hearing from @intika, possibly because they have been gagged by Mozilla. If only we could get an update from @intika… Does anyone apart from @intika have push access to this repo? I know that @intika entrusted some of us (myself included) with access to the @Librefox organization, but the main repo remains in their name (I think @intika eventually revoked our push rights from some of the other repos on the org). I'm not sure how this might turn out, but here's an idea: what if we create and maintain a fork of the main repo in the organisation? The option to create a repo in the org's name seems to be working for me (although I'm not completely sure). I would love if there were some way of verifying whether @intika will be coming back to this project, but in spite of our attempts, we haven't heard from them. It's been 4 months since their last commit or visible interaction with this repository. They seem to be active on GitHub otherwise. Odds are they have been gagged by Mozilla, but then again, we are in the dark as to what copyright issues there might possibly be. If we do choose to take this path, we should probably do our research and make sure we don't fringe on Mozilla's copyright(s). If @intika does eventually, return to this repo (I hope they do), they could merge this repo with the fork or vice-versa. Edit: @Serkan-devel seems to have suggested something similar in the past. |
|
I wrote Intika an e-mail a long time ago asking about this, and he didn't reply. He's probably not coming back then. I mean couldn't he at least reply privately? |
|
@SuperRobinHood Nothing's private on the internet, of course, but I get your point. I once thought of writing to them too, but didn't.
Sigh Let me create a fork. |
|
I've created a fork on the org. I've given @intika admin access, in case they return. I don't know the in's and out's of the project, so I'd like to give some other people write access so they can review PRs as well. How do I go about this? |
|
One problem with directly forking a project is that Github won't show these forks in search results. |
|
@Serkan-devel Yes, and we can't add a link to the main repo either since no-one but @intika has push access to it. |
|
Maybe one could clone the repo locally and push the fork as it's own repo, then migrate all the open issues from this repo to there |
|
Let me contact support and ask them to switch Librefox/Librefox to 'normal mode', disassociating the repo from the fork. Can't delete the repo and redo since "Organization members can't delete repositories". |
|
Why can not you not completely rewrite the program so make your own then you did not need @intika anymore he will not come back anymore. But I think it's a bit brazen of him that he can not give at least one answer to us where the problem is The name LibreVixen does not sound bad |
|
If you can devevelop this, just mirror it and start with a brand new repo and code base. There is no problem with that because the original devs clearly not in a position to communicate. |
|
I don't understand how DCMA or this gag order works. I mean, aren't they supposed to let those accused know what the infringing part is and tell them what to do with it... use as is, attribute, don't modify, stop completely or whatever!~ |
|
If we do create a completely new organization, could we do it on gitlab? I do like the sound of LibreVixen as well by the way. |
|
Gitlab.com is still poprietary but that might be a possibility |
|
@shreyasminocha issues are currently disabled on your fork |
|
@Serkan-devel Fixed. |
|
Gitlab.com is proprietary? It runs on gitlab CE as far as i know |
|
I doubt it ever ran CE though |
Just want to bring up that "Vixen" (or Wixen, Wicksen) means "to wank" in german ;-) |
Ja aber schreibt man nicht Wichsen so ? |
|
Vixen and Fork(en), LOL : ) Forking this project is fine, but, let's say things go smoothly for a few days/weeks... what is to say that Mozilla won't slap the DCMA/gag order again. So, that road will lead to the same place. My suggestion is to brainstorm a list of things that could have caused Mozilla to react in such a manner! Trying to identify the issue is very important... this is where everyone, our collective brains+research can help. Further, looking at other forks of Firefox and how those projects handled/avoided potential issues from our list could help! At least this way, we are creating a roadmap and systematically stepping through... because the road has mines (LOL) and we don't where they are! |
|
I would try to avoid everything that could cause a tradmark issue but if mozilla sees "Librefox" as a threat then i assume they will try to go after anything they can. Mozilla doesnt want to protect their Brand but they want to kill projects that do not behave as they please. For that reason i want to suggest the option to move primary development over to a tor hidden service if that is feasable. not as a means to do something illegal but as an additional line of defense. a website and download on the normal web can be hosted by an independend party. this way the developers are safe and if the website is taken down it can easily be rehosted and mirrored somewhere else much like the Torproject itself. |
|
#Trademark -- okay, but how? There are other forks and have been going strong for a while. **Stronger security / privacy: but they are already cherry picking features from the TOR browser ... What else could be pissing off Mozilla? What you say about going stealth... giving the finger to Mozilla (LOL) and following TOR project's workflow (develop and release) sounds okay, but, not if you don't have to. |
|
Well, we could start by forking to Gitlab, and if anything, we can move to a self hosted instance once we have the resources. I've taken the liberty of going ahead and creating the repository here: https://gitlab.com/librevixen . Just message me with your usernames so I can add you. As for the reasons firefox is angry, I'm not too sure. I believe firefox has a compile time option that should remove all trademarks and logos and so on. We could use that. |
|
See this fork of Iceweasel for Win, might offer some clue maybe? |
|
@BeatLink please add me @brainscar |
|
@theel0ja Please give gitlab username to @BeatLink |
|
@BeatLink does building it from the source code have any benefits? Isn't it possible to just use unbranded builds as a base? |
Those unbranded builds don't use our own naming scheme. The executable's name is still firefox and the profile folder it uses is still .mozilla, which might cause conflicts with an existing installation |
|
You could rename the executable as you wish.
Yes, but it uses its own profile folder: |
|
Okay so I just downloaded it and tested it out. Attempting to change the executable name results in: And while a separate profile is created, it is still in the ~/.mozilla/firefox folder. which is problematic because we want to get as far away from Mozilla's branding as possible and to not have it affect an existing install of firefox in anyway. So i still think we need to do our own compilation. Plus it will help with other privacy improvements such as compiling without telemetry and pocket and the like |
|
Do I understand correctly, that is (mostly) because of a possibility of potential legal threats? |
|
Yes. While I do not know the full details, i understand that the reason LibreFox originally went into a hiatus was some issues related to copyright. As a result, while we continue this fork in intika's absence, we will aim as much as possible to distance ourselves from Firefox's branding and existing installations, to minimize any possible complications. Incidentally, this is a community run continuation. Should intika contact us to rejoin the project, we are happy to have them return (I'm learning this as I go, if I'm being honest with you) |
|
We have moved to gitlab here, https://gitlab.com/librewolf-community, due to several benefits, but mainly that we have found a way to use their CI/CD system with runners on our personal machines to compile librewolf. See you over there! |
|
@BeatLink are you able to build multiple versions for different platforms ATM? |
Just linux at the current moment |
|
@BeatLink |
|
Thank you for the offer! But yeah, you're right, we've just got settled on gitlab :). If you're willing and able to, you can help us out by firing up a Gitlab runner for CI/CD! I could really use the help with compiling. |
|
Why move to GitLab? This will create just more confusion and differences. You can also use some other CI/CD systems with GitHub. |
|
We moved to Gitlab mainly because it has an integrated CI/CD system that allowed us to build and test LibreWolf. This CI/CD system also allows us to setup CI environments on our own personal devices, which allowed us to solve an issue Github couldn't: Almost all the CI/CD systems on Github has job timeouts that would be too short for the compile times of librewolf. By using CI/CD setups on our own systems, integrated into Gitlab's infrastructure, we could seamlessly build, test and deploy librewolf without this worry of timeouts. Furthermore, Gitlab is open core and self hostable, should we require to do so and have the available infrastructure, unlike Github, who is not only proprietary but also owned by Microsoft. Gitlab also has an active community who believes in some of our ethos. I understand your misgivings about creating more confusion. Rest assured that Gitlab will be the final place of LibreWolf from now on. |
But gitlab.com (which you currently use) is hosted on Google Cloud. This is same bad as Microsoft (or even worse). Could you run self-hosted instance but keep CI/CD system? |
|
We do not have the infrastructure to perform CI/CD builds much less run our own Gitlab instance. I do not see how an open source software running on a proprietary infrastructure is worse than a completely proprietary service owned and operated by microsoft. |
It's not. It's still good if you can't run your own instance. I wanted to say that I would not trust Google anything more than Microsoft. Both of them are big USA corporations and both of them track users. |
|
@BeatLink do you hang out on IRC or XMPP where we can actually chat about providing you a CI environment? ;) |
|
I do get on IRC sometimes. Where should we meet? |
|
@BeatLink I'm on Freenode most of the time. Just drop me a query ;) |
You can use Gitlab CI on your own instance, but you need to provide the nodes yourself. |
ghost
mentioned this issue
|
Any active download releases for LibreWolf, seems the Gitlab pages are even worse to navigate and find anything than GitHub |
|
@XeonG This is slightly late, but check the Releases tab on the GitLab repo. We now have some preliminary releases thanks to @/ohfp. The download button on https://librewolf-community.gitlab.io now works too. v73.0.1-1 is the latest working version. |
|
@shreyasminocha How about keeping a mirror on codeberg.org? Since we are currently unable to host git ourselves, I think we should host the project on a community-owned website (e.g. codeberg, notabug, framagit, etc.) instead of GitLab (due to the concerns other users have mentioned above) |
|
From 45a4d3c in 2019:
That tomorrow has never come. @AnXh3L0 could you shed any light on this please? Do you have any idea why @intika disappeared? |
|
Was actually raised and replied here: |
Due to the halting of development on this repository, we have created a new, community run successor to LibreFox, called LibreWolf. Check out the new organization here! https://gitlab.com/librewolf-community
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: