3 ms·
Firstly, thanks for the useful add-on! > - provide an XPI (that will only benefit the few since the side-loading process is made awkwarder at every point relea
by gnomewascool 8y ago
Firstly, thanks for the useful add-on!
> - provide an XPI (that will only benefit the few since the side-loading process is made awkwarder at every point release) ?
You could get your add-on signed as an "unlisted"[0] add-on and upload it to GitHub as a "release" (for which you can upload binary files[1]). This would make the add-on less easily discoverable (than it had been), but at least all Firefox users could install it without much of a hassle. OTOH if the add-on becomes popular again, take-down requests might be sent to you or GitHub.
[0] By unlisted I mean not publicly distributed via AMO; there's no restriction on distribution via other channels. See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Distribution https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Dis...
[1] https://help.github.com/articles/distributing-large-binaries/ https://help.github.com/articles/distributing-large-binaries...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- nextgens 8y agoThey make it clear that it's not the listing of the addon on AMO that makes it subject to their policies (and local laws)... it's the signing itself. So yeah... I can provide an unsigned copy of my add-ons to users... but unsigned add-ons are by design awkward to side-load :/