i430VX Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 4 hours ago, roytam1 said: PM26 doesn't use any ffmpeg/ffvpx bits(it relies on libvpx only) so this won't work. Ahhhh, I see, sorry for the confusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdfox7 Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 4 hours ago, roytam1 said: because youtube requires mediasource now, this will be hard to fix. PM26 doesn't use any ffmpeg/ffvpx bits(it relies on libvpx only) so this won't work. What a pity, there are millions of obsolete computers that Google/YouTube won't be able to data-mine from! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VistaLover Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 New Moon 28 and/or Serpent 52.9.0 also at peril? https://github.com/binaryoutcast/binoc-central/issues/73#issuecomment-467662459 (part of the binoc-central #73 thread...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibya Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 3 hours ago, roytam1 said: not quite possible due to rust usage. As far as I remember ff56 uses little bit of rust so we may revert them with code of bk55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneCrusader Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 9 hours ago, Matt A. Tobin said: Come at me. Except that isn't valid.. What is a boc,? Nothing I am involved with, I'm sure. Moonchild has nothing to do with this. He is NOT a member of Binary Outcast. Interlink and other BinOC Projects are in no way related to Moonchild Productions. However, let's explore this for a moment, so not supporting an 18 year old operating system that Microsoft doesn't even support anymore is "Not doing a good job". How does this make logical sense? Hmm? In any event, the MPL is satisfied. Hmm.. let's see. "Not doing a good job" could easily be defined as "breaking things that already work." For example existing code support for older operating systems. Nice and simple. 9 hours ago, Matt A. Tobin said: How does this make any sense? I help create the future. Hell, in many ways I created a lot of what you see these days. What am I following? Nothing, except my own vision. I am indeed a trendsetter. You do know it was my pushing things along that contributed to the reality you now experience especially with the abused software you are getting from Roytam. A lot of it would not be as it is without me. Which is why I am somewhat protective of it. Of course if he WASN'T a moron he would properly re-brand his efforts and not fall back on false attribution of his corruption. I fail to see how roytam's software is "abused," give that he is actually fixing things you or Moonchild have broken, on purpose. See above. 8 hours ago, Matt A. Tobin said: Well seeing as it isn't Pale Moon... I dunno what to tell you dude. That is the point isn't it.. Whatever Roytam is producing isn't Pale Moon or Basilisk or Interlink or anything else. Unofficial Builds are not official and have no validity. At MOST you have to talk to Roytam about software he produces.. Not BinOC or MCP.. So here is a question, IF My self and Moonchild are not doing a very good job.. What do you call Roytam's work in this Netflix case? No one claimed they are official. In fact the About dialog in these builds clearly states they are not. "Not doing a good job" again..? See above. 7 hours ago, Matt A. Tobin said: For for the builds based on Pale Moon and Basilisk the issue is that using the generic branding and then in the same sentence calling it "Pale Moon" and "Basilisk" everywhere creates massive confusion this is the false attribution and representation of whatever it is Roytam wants to produce. He and his cohorts refuse to create unique branding for it and continue to refer to it as "x for Windows XP" linking his builds to us. The same can be said for Binary Outcast projects except while Interlink has complete renaming to not cause confusion he again attributes this unauthorized build as Binary Outcast's Interlink.. In the case of the navigator.. It isn't even a finished product and he is shipping it out again with attribution but because it IS unfinished I have not yet made clear unofficial branding to differentiate it from the product I am producing. Additionally, as it is an UNFINISHED and currently UNRELEASED project it still has Mozilla Copywritten and Trademarked assets in terms of the Mozilla Suite Icons and SeaMonkey logos and icons that I have not yet replaced. The MPL gives him the right to take the source code and do what he likes with it according to the license but that ONLY applies to the source code that matches a binary form in question. Additionally, attributing his work based on my projects IS improper use of MY trademarks and general rights which are NOT extended to him. He is doing material damage by linking his builds to me AND he is doing materal damage by using my trademarked product name of Borealis in the actual resulting binary which the MPL strictly does not extend rights to. He is also doing damage to Mozilla for which there is copywritten and/or trademarked assets he is distributing. THIS has ALWAYS been my problem with Roytam and his friends. Instead of creating something of their own they do the minimum amount of work possible and wobble back and forth across the line of rights infringement to produce these builds for which they get acclaim from people like you from but when something goes wrong it falls to us to clean it up. As I also said, it also causes confusion with users. MCP has basically washed their hands and ignores Roytam's builds but my self as Binary Outcast, I want Borealis-based builds of the navigator to be pulled immediately from his archives as rights infringing material not only of my self but on behalf of the SeaMonkey Project and Mozilla until such time the project achieves first release, provide non-infringing unofficial branding, or he creates his own. As for Interlink-based builds I want all mention of the Interlink trademark removed from the associated sites and repositories OR and FOR the future there is a clear disclaimer that these builds are not in any way affiliated with Binary Outcast. IF these provisions are met I will cease my current activity and allow you to continue on as before without interference. I'd like to see some proof of this supposed "massive confusion." If there is any confusion, it must come from those who are clueless in the first place. You cannot fault roytam for users who are too ignorant to read the About dialog or to deal with any issues here, where the builds are linked, rather than going to you or to the official PaleMoon forum. Also I'd love to see even one example where you or Moonchild or anyone else in your "group" has "cleaned up a mess when something goes wrong" that addressed the first single issue that affected these older operating systems or users of the unofficial builds on these systems. It sounds more to me like you're just a butthurt jerk who is having a tantrum because someone is making your toy work in places where you don't want it to. If you don't like it, write your own closed source program and stop "abusing" Mozilla's existing code. Without Mozilla's existing code, which once again I will remind you already provides compatibility for the systems roytam is targeting, and which you have intentionally broken, your pet projects would be nonexistent. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanR20 Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, VistaLover said: New Moon 28 and/or Serpent 52.9.0 also at peril? https://github.com/binaryoutcast/binoc-central/issues/73#issuecomment-467662459 (part of the binoc-central #73 thread...) Wouldn't it be just a matter of changing the name? That seems to be one of the complaints. There would be no more weekly updates, we'd have to wait until the official release for any bug fixes etc. to be applied by the sound of it. Hopefully just bumps in the road rather than killing what are obviously better builds than their releases. That's probably what's eating at them. Edited February 27, 2019 by DanR20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roytam1 Posted February 27, 2019 Author Share Posted February 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, DanR20 said: Wouldn't it be just a matter of changing the name? That seems to be one of the complaints. There would be no more weekly updates, we'd have to wait to until the official release for any bug fixes etc. to be applied by the sound of it. Hopefully just bumps in the road rather than killing what are obviously better builds than their releases. That's probably what's eating at them. actually not only the name, relevant artworks have to be replaced. on UXP side, binaries from unmodified UXP tree without "--enable-official" switch can be distributed from my understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanR20 Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, roytam1 said: on UXP side, binaries from unmodified UXP tree without "--enable-official" switch can be distributed from my understanding. So would this mean you could carry on with the weekly UXP updates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roytam1 Posted February 27, 2019 Author Share Posted February 27, 2019 35 minutes ago, Dibya said: As far as I remember ff56 uses little bit of rust so we may revert them with code of bk55 actually quite alot. also there're many google upstream changes breaking old windows compatibility. you may check my https://github.com/roytam1/firefox55norust for reference. (I still can't get a working binary(binary builds but crashes in win7) for new windows with --disable-rust switch supplied) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roytam1 Posted February 27, 2019 Author Share Posted February 27, 2019 Just now, DanR20 said: So would this mean you could carry on with the weekly UXP updates? why not? issue encounters in boc-uxp binaries, of course I can pull them down (but I think mailnews binaries should be fine, borxp may not) and for seamonkey-related artworks, I don't think there is an issue. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt A. Tobin Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 (edited) Okay, how about this one. Mozilla Public License version 2.0 Section 3.2 paragraph a: Quote [...] obtain a copy of such Source Code Form by reasonable means in a timely manner, at a charge no more than the cost of distribution to the recipient The means I deem reasonable are by burned optical disc and postage. If you wish any further copies of the source code form from Binary Outcast beyond what has already been released, you will have to send a formal request to support [at] binaryoutcast [dot] com with your personal mailing address. I will then I will calculate the cost of the optical media and postage to your house and we can arrange payment for distribution materials and transit. You will get it in a timely manor. You will have to do this for each release of each application I produce. This is provided you actually use the binaries I produce. Very glad that Mozilla rewrote that part of the license when they did 2.0 Might want to think about that next time you accuse someone falsely of not following the MPL to the letter. As a matter of fact, the time between taking down the repo and getting the current source tarballs on the line was less than 24 hours. Also, that clause of the license to be triggered you would have had to make a good faith inquiry regarding the source code. You chose, however, to make a public scene and throw around accusations. You still haven't directly addressed me or asked for anything. This makes you a coward in my book. A coward and possibly a thief. I await your formal request upon the next release of one of my software products. Edited February 27, 2019 by Matt A. Tobin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneCrusader Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 6 minutes ago, Matt A. Tobin said: Okay, how about this one. Mozilla Public License version 2.0 Section 3.2 paragraph a: The means I deem reasonable are by burned optical disc and postage. If you wish any further copies of the source code form from Binary Outcast beyond what has already been released, you will have to send a formal request to support [at] binaryoutcast [dot] com with your personal mailing address. I will then I will calculate the cost of the optical media and postage to your house. You will have to do this for each release of each application I produce. Very glad that Mozilla rewrote that part of the license when they did 2.0 Nope. Delusions of grandeur. Guess what. A judge or jury would be the one "deem reasonable" in this case if it ever came to court. Aside from that, given in this case that you are already perfectly able to and actively "digitally distributing" the executable form, then I don't believe any judge or jury would look favorably on you purposely creating arbitrary "obstacles" in the way of accessing the source code, which could be construed as an "attempt to alter or restrict the recipients’ rights" as prohibited in Section 3.1. Also, returning to the first point, given that literally thousands of open-source programs (and even entire operating systems) today are perfectly capable of providing digital distribution of their sources, I see no reason why a judge or jury should entertain the idea of providing an exception for you. And, even in the end, if you were somehow able to pull that off, I'll pledge $100 right now toward the cost of creating more work and annoyance for you. Remember me when you're making trips to the post office. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt A. Tobin Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 This is all quite unnecessary you know.. If Roytam were to withdraw the navigator builds with infringing content until it is actually a finished product and stop referring to any Binary Outcast project by its trademarked name or at least give it a "Based on Interlink Mail & News" or "Based on Borealis Navigator" and put up a disclaimer on his downloads page that these builds are not in any way affiliated or distributed by Binary Outcast.. I would return the public repository on github back to its former operational state. However, I will defend my trademarks and intellectual property including brand names. There are other things I can do as well. I can create a larger work and not open source any thing new in such required availability of covered software in source form. Only the specific Mozilla code. I still don't see how that helps anyone though. It would be simpler not to infringe on my rights instead. One must understand that open source does not mean public domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roytam1 Posted February 27, 2019 Author Share Posted February 27, 2019 3 hours ago, Matt A. Tobin said: This is all quite unnecessary you know.. If Roytam were to withdraw the navigator builds with infringing content until it is actually a finished product and stop referring to any Binary Outcast project by its trademarked name or at least give it a "Based on Interlink Mail & News" or "Based on Borealis Navigator" and put up a disclaimer on his downloads page that these builds are not in any way affiliated or distributed by Binary Outcast.. I would return the public repository on github back to its former operational state. However, I will defend my trademarks and intellectual property including brand names. There are other things I can do as well. I can create a larger work and not open source any thing new in such required availability of covered software in source form. Only the specific Mozilla code. I still don't see how that helps anyone though. It would be simpler not to infringe on my rights instead. One must understand that open source does not mean public domain. the download page has this statement included and Borealis™ binaries are removed. http://o.rths.cf/boc-uxp/ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 9 minutes ago, roytam1 said: the download page has this statement included and Borealis™ binaries are removed. http://o.rths.cf/boc-uxp/ How come it is "boc-uxp" (and not "BinOC-uxp")? jaclaz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts