01:36:38 <franstam> fuck chrome and all its crap
04:01:34 <ewong> franstam: no need to use expletives.
14:34:38 <bittin> did help some more with the Swedish translation
14:39:52 <frg_Away> bittin Thanks
14:41:17 <pandakekok9> frg_Away: Btw, thanks for the quick response to that Usenet post of mine about the compatibility indicator, good thing I just thought of accessing my Facebook today, lol
14:41:49 <pandakekok9> 68.0 might be a good target too, which is what UXP currently uses
14:42:08 <frg_Away> pandakekok9	 Is just a test ballon to see what breaks. My sites are fine it seems. I am trying with 78 right now.
14:42:49 <frg_Away> Btw. compression fix is Bug 1728996 as of today.
14:43:03 <pandakekok9> yeah, will try 78 as well once I get he new build
14:43:45 <pandakekok9> cool
14:43:56 <frg_Away> I am building now. If it breaks will lower to 68. Waterfox recently switched to it.
14:45:35 <pandakekok9> to be clear, from that bug you're referring to the "compress" method in the Accept-Encoding header, not *compression* in general, right?
14:47:41 <frg_Away> yes pref change as discussed. Will upload the patch later. In cleanup mode today to tie up a few loose ends.
14:50:53 <WG9s_> wasn't that a Springsteen song that stevie complained was not played enough?  Thought should have been the song at end of sopranos rather than don't stop believing?
14:52:31 <WG9s_> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RvmALTXl1Y
15:05:23 <frg_Away> 78 seems to do the trick for now.
22:24:42 <NewTobinParadigm> I have a question for you. Please disregard the fact it is coming from me.
22:25:47 <NewTobinParadigm> According to the MPL 2.0 is a collection of patch files without being along side a base source bundle or any indication of what specific way to obtain the base source code the patches are based on considered in and of them selves to be the Source Code Form as defined in the license.
23:32:21 <jonadab> NewTobinParadigm: I can't parse that sentence.
23:33:02 <NewTobinParadigm> Ok.. Someone makes changes to the codebase and they release a binary and a series of patch files and nothing else
23:33:14 <jonadab> Ah.
23:33:26 <NewTobinParadigm> no indication where the base source code is what state it is from.. no commit no tag no nothing
23:33:26 <jonadab> You're asking if they have to release the entire codebase, or just the changes.
23:33:41 <jonadab> I see.
23:33:42 <NewTobinParadigm> they never even mentioned it was under the MPL
23:33:58 <NewTobinParadigm> just a repo with patch files saying Mozilla and some binaries
23:34:14 <NewTobinParadigm> is that keeping with the obligations under the MPL
23:34:28 <jonadab> Ok, I understand the question now.
23:34:31 <NewTobinParadigm> ye
23:34:46 <jonadab> I don't know enough about the MPL to answer it, but someone else here might.
23:35:29 <NewTobinParadigm> The Source Code Form is defined as the form prefered for making modifications
23:36:24 <NewTobinParadigm> Mozilla's opinion is Minified Javascript is not a valid Source Code Form because while it contains the entire source obviously it is not very easy for people to make changes in
23:36:53 <NewTobinParadigm> So given that and the nature of patch files .. can patch files in and of them selves be considered the source code form in its entirety
23:37:10 <jonadab> I mean, Javascript _in general_ is not a form of code that I personally want to work with, but you know.
23:37:21 <NewTobinParadigm> irrelevant
23:37:26 <jonadab> Right.
23:37:44 <jonadab> patch files are obviously not (usually) enough to reconstruct the complete source code.
23:38:08 <NewTobinParadigm> yeah
23:38:11 <jonadab> Unless there are included "initial checkin" patch files that basically are a diff against nothing, from when the project started.
23:38:17 <jonadab> Which is how git repos for example usually work.
23:38:25 <NewTobinParadigm> well no nothing just patch files
23:39:04 <NewTobinParadigm> no orginal source no links to orginal source no tags no commits just patch files that HAPPEN to be sitting in a git repo
23:39:25 <NewTobinParadigm> no indication it is MPL and no indication how to obtain the source code
23:41:05 <jonadab> I don't know the ins and outs of the MPL, but that doesn't *sound* to me like it would comply with any share-alike license.
23:41:22 <NewTobinParadigm> it doesn't
23:41:31 <NewTobinParadigm> but these people are arguing it does
23:42:04 <jonadab> If they're a small operation, it could just be ignorance.
23:42:07 <tomman> name and shame
23:42:19 <tomman> that's a clear license violation
23:42:33 <NewTobinParadigm> as that is a basis for a notification of violation i sent to them in 2019 upon which the same person.. the only person doing any work made a very similar violation and I have terminated their grant to my code under Section 5.1 for repeat violations
23:42:40 <tomman> not even a git/whatever commit ID?!
23:42:56 <NewTobinParadigm> Ignorance while not actually an excuse is a valid reason for the FIRST time
23:43:02 <NewTobinParadigm> tomman: no
23:43:06 <NewTobinParadigm> just patch files
23:43:17 <jonadab> I'm not saying ignorance would make it ok; it just changes maybe how you want to correct them.
23:43:38 <tomman> patch files that you're supposed to apply against... thin air, I guess
23:43:43 <NewTobinParadigm> well i allowed them to upload the source code to make it obvious there WAS source code and got on with life
23:43:44 <tomman> yeah, that won't fly
23:43:53 <NewTobinParadigm> 3 years later a similar issue happened
23:44:06 <NewTobinParadigm> so I terminated their grant
23:44:14 <tomman> unfortunately it's hard to get licenses enforced unless you're willing to get lawyers involved
23:44:26 <tomman> and that's icky... not to say expensive as hell
23:44:55 <tomman> and from what you're saying, guess you're dealing with one of those special snowflake cases
23:45:31 <NewTobinParadigm> oh they have launched a war against me and got two different subreddits involved... people wishing death on me and everything
23:46:28 <NewTobinParadigm> even though the person in question has complied.. eventually with the termination of the grant and has chosen not to do anything else quite yet.. he is letting any half-crazed passerby fight his battles for him
23:46:33 <NewTobinParadigm> been going 12 days now
23:47:25 <tomman> Leaving aside reputations and stuff, yeah, it's an icky situation
23:47:39 <tomman> sadly this is The Internet™, where everybody feels entitled to an opinion
23:47:48 <NewTobinParadigm> anyway thanks for your thoughts.. I won't take up anymore time since it IS offtopic to the channel and project.. But the next rights they violate might be yours
23:48:07 <tomman> I would say "lawyer up", but alas, money
23:48:15 <NewTobinParadigm> No comment.
23:48:18 <NewTobinParadigm> ;)
23:48:39 <NewTobinParadigm> well the gnutards are always saying this is a SOCIAL PROBLEM
23:48:44 <NewTobinParadigm> maybe we can keep it as such
23:48:47 <NewTobinParadigm> eh?
23:49:04 <tomman> to be fair, it is
23:49:17 <tomman> people being dicks on the Internet is a social problem with many roots
23:49:24 <tomman> but no fixes, unfortunately
23:49:26 <NewTobinParadigm> man an i thought I was a half crazed antisocial lunitic.. you should see these people
23:49:42 <NewTobinParadigm> I can't hold a candle in comparison
23:50:08 <NewTobinParadigm> anyway thanks again!
23:50:28 <NewTobinParadigm> peace.. or some sort of off brand peace like substitute