4 ms·

Mozilla shouldn’t recommend an old and unmaintained fork (Adblocker ultimate) when they could recommend the actual, up-to-date extension (AdGuard). The rip-off

Mozilla shouldn’t recommend an old and unmaintained fork (Adblocker ultimate) when they could recommend the actual, up-to-date extension (AdGuard). The rip-off extension only has a lot of downloads (more than the real extension, in fact) because it’s recommended by Mozilla. It’s not illegal, just unethical.

kortilla 7y ago
It’s not unethical, Mozilla has no responsibility to promote any particular extension. If it were ripped off closed source code, then sure. But a fork of an open source project is part of the deal with open source.
- jraph 7y ago
  Just because you are allowed to do something does not mean that it is ethical. Same with the law. Slavery was once allowed. Many people find that unethical nonetheless. The opposite is also true: just because something is outlawed does not mean it is unethical. Many things deemed good now became lawful after people did them. Ethics is not defined by laws, contracts and licenses. It is defined by your moral compass and different people under a same law may have different world views. I have seen Mozilla recommend closed source addons. They have all the rights to do that (thanksfully), however I was not too happy with this, especially from an organization that promotes open source and an open web. I see no point in promoting an outdated fork when you can recommend the better, fresher, original extension.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Wow, thanks for the refresher that ethics != laws. I had accidentally completely forgotten that. Now, back to the point. Nobody has made an ethical argument that Mozilla shouldn’t be pushing an extension that is a fork with a license preferable to them.
    - jraph 7y ago
      Well, these points were made in this thread and elsewhere, but in this case, pushing this extension instead of the original one prevents users to find the better version, and these users might even donate to the fork in the hope it will improve or to thank for the work, instead of donating to the original one, that really did the work and will be able to improve it. Of course, this does not apply to every situation where there is a fork. In many situations, there is real work done in the fork, sometimes this work is even upstreamed. > a fork with a license preferable to them Both extensions have the same license (GPLv3), except the fork removed the original copyright notices from the original source code. This is probably not even allowed, let alone ethical.
qwerty456127 7y ago
Ethics is not the major problem here. The problem is the recommendation actually is harmful - it influences the users the way they install an outdated and less-supported version of an extension instead of a more relevant one. The top recommendations must be curated by humans with reason to actually offer the best extensions and not spam like that.

kortilla 7y ago

It’s not unethical, Mozilla has no responsibility to promote any particular extension. If it were ripped off closed source code, then sure. But a fork of an open source project is part of the deal with open source.

jraph 7y ago
Just because you are allowed to do something does not mean that it is ethical. Same with the law. Slavery was once allowed. Many people find that unethical nonetheless. The opposite is also true: just because something is outlawed does not mean it is unethical. Many things deemed good now became lawful after people did them. Ethics is not defined by laws, contracts and licenses. It is defined by your moral compass and different people under a same law may have different world views. I have seen Mozilla recommend closed source addons. They have all the rights to do that (thanksfully), however I was not too happy with this, especially from an organization that promotes open source and an open web. I see no point in promoting an outdated fork when you can recommend the better, fresher, original extension.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Wow, thanks for the refresher that ethics != laws. I had accidentally completely forgotten that. Now, back to the point. Nobody has made an ethical argument that Mozilla shouldn’t be pushing an extension that is a fork with a license preferable to them.
  - jraph 7y ago
    Well, these points were made in this thread and elsewhere, but in this case, pushing this extension instead of the original one prevents users to find the better version, and these users might even donate to the fork in the hope it will improve or to thank for the work, instead of donating to the original one, that really did the work and will be able to improve it. Of course, this does not apply to every situation where there is a fork. In many situations, there is real work done in the fork, sometimes this work is even upstreamed. > a fork with a license preferable to them Both extensions have the same license (GPLv3), except the fork removed the original copyright notices from the original source code. This is probably not even allowed, let alone ethical.

qwerty456127 7y ago

Ethics is not the major problem here. The problem is the recommendation actually is harmful - it influences the users the way they install an outdated and less-supported version of an extension instead of a more relevant one. The top recommendations must be curated by humans with reason to actually offer the best extensions and not spam like that.