[needs-packaging] Foxmarks (Firefox extension)

Brian Murray wrote:
> ** Also affects: firefox-extensions
> Importance: Undecided
> Status: New
>

Let me know if you need help with it. I have a little freetime i can do
the research on it and ill look into packaging it if you cant.
--
Sincerely Yours,
    John Vivirito

https://launchpad.net/~gnomefreak
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JohnVivirito
Linux User# 414246

Im leaving extensions task as incomplete until all info in on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Firefox3Extensions or on this bug and i will move it over to the wiki if needed. I will compare wiki and these bugs to see if we can atleast package it or not, some are listed as cant for a few difference reasons.

name: firefox-foxmarks

description: Foxmarks is a free add-on for your Firefox browser that syncs and backs up your bookmarks and passwords across multiple computers and more.

url: http://www.foxmarks.com/ and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2410

license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php or simply MIT license

depends: firefox

packaging: like many other firefox packages have already been packaged.

I have been in touch with upstream autor bout the license.
1. No license provided in the source pakage.
2. Never got back to me when asked about adding license to source package.
I have started on anotheer project to replace this one however im still waiting for a reply since once again no license including in source.

I would like to know wher eyou got the info about it being MIT license.

License is multiple times in the .js source code, see

~/.<email address hidden>$ grep -riI mit *|grep -i license
chrome/content/shared/passwordmeter.js:License: MIT License (see below)
chrome/content/shared/passwordmeter.js:Modified: 20060620 - added MIT License
chrome/content/foxmarks-utils.js: License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
chrome/content/foxmarks-utils.js: * Released under the MIT license

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:01:59PM -0000, Pander wrote:
> License is multiple times in the .js source code, see
>
> ~/.<email address hidden>$ grep -riI mit *|grep -i license
> chrome/content/shared/passwordmeter.js:License: MIT License (see below)
> chrome/content/shared/passwordmeter.js:Modified: 20060620 - added MIT License
> chrome/content/foxmarks-utils.js: License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
> chrome/content/foxmarks-utils.js: * Released under the MIT license

Folks should really put a license file in the .xpi ... otherwise we
need to review each individual file and if there is any that doesnt
have an explicit license hint, its not sure.

We probably can remove preference .js files and install.rdf as well as
chrome.manifest from the list of files that require an explicit
copyright, but most authors forget license headers in .xul/xml files.

 - Alexander

On 12/04/2008 06:58 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:01:59PM -0000, Pander wrote:
>> License is multiple times in the .js source code, see
>>
>> ~/.<email address hidden>$ grep -riI mit *|grep -i license
>> chrome/content/shared/passwordmeter.js:License: MIT License (see below)
>> chrome/content/shared/passwordmeter.js:Modified: 20060620 - added MIT License
>> chrome/content/foxmarks-utils.js: License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
>> chrome/content/foxmarks-utils.js: * Released under the MIT license
>
> Folks should really put a license file in the .xpi ... otherwise we
> need to review each individual file and if there is any that doesnt
> have an explicit license hint, its not sure.
>
> We probably can remove preference .js files and install.rdf as well as
> chrome.manifest from the list of files that require an explicit
> copyright, but most authors forget license headers in .xul/xml files.
>
>
> - Alexander
>
When i spoke to author about this he stated that it is now nonfree and
when i dug harder into him for the license he stated all about the
copyright so i email him back stating i needed license not copyriguht
and never heard back from him.

--
Sincerely Yours,
     John Vivirito

https://launchpad.net/~gnomefreak
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JohnVivirito
Linux User# 414246

"How can i get lost, if i have no where to go"
     -- Metallica from UnforgivenIII

On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 11:20:59AM -0000, John Vivirito wrote:
> On 12/04/2008 06:58 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:01:59PM -0000, Pander wrote:
> >> License is multiple times in the .js source code, see
> >>
> >> ~/.<email address hidden>$ grep -riI mit *|grep -i license
> >> chrome/content/shared/passwordmeter.js:License: MIT License (see below)
> >> chrome/content/shared/passwordmeter.js:Modified: 20060620 - added MIT License
> >> chrome/content/foxmarks-utils.js: License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
> >> chrome/content/foxmarks-utils.js: * Released under the MIT license
> >
> > Folks should really put a license file in the .xpi ... otherwise we
> > need to review each individual file and if there is any that doesnt
> > have an explicit license hint, its not sure.
> >
> > We probably can remove preference .js files and install.rdf as well as
> > chrome.manifest from the list of files that require an explicit
> > copyright, but most authors forget license headers in .xul/xml files.
> >
> >
> > - Alexander
> >
> When i spoke to author about this he stated that it is now nonfree and
> when i dug harder into him for the license he stated all about the
> copyright so i email him back stating i needed license not copyriguht
> and never heard back from him.
>

All now nonfree? Then dump it. Its not worth running after someone who
wants to keep stuff nonfree.

Remind him that he shall update his extension license info on
addons.mozilla.org ... if he hasn't done it yet.

 - Alexander

On 12/06/2008 10:57 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 11:20:59AM -0000, John Vivirito wrote:
>> On 12/04/2008 06:58 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:01:59PM -0000, Pander wrote:
>>>> License is multiple times in the .js source code, see
>>>>
>>>> ~/.<email address hidden>$ grep -riI mit *|grep -i license
>>>> chrome/content/shared/passwordmeter.js:License: MIT License (see below)
>>>> chrome/content/shared/passwordmeter.js:Modified: 20060620 - added MIT License
>>>> chrome/content/foxmarks-utils.js: License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
>>>> chrome/content/foxmarks-utils.js: * Released under the MIT license
>>> Folks should really put a license file in the .xpi ... otherwise we
>>> need to review each individual file and if there is any that doesnt
>>> have an explicit license hint, its not sure.
>>>
>>> We probably can remove preference .js files and install.rdf as well as
>>> chrome.manifest from the list of files that require an explicit
>>> copyright, but most authors forget license headers in .xul/xml files.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Alexander
>>>
>> When i spoke to author about this he stated that it is now nonfree and
>> when i dug harder into him for the license he stated all about the
>> copyright so i email him back stating i needed license not copyriguht
>> and never heard back from him.
>>
>
> All now nonfree? Then dump it. Its not worth running after someone who
> wants to keep stuff nonfree.
>
> Remind him that he shall update his extension license info on
> addons.mozilla.org ... if he hasn't done it yet.
>
> - Alexander
>
I have spoke to him in email around 5 times and all he said he wont add
a lincense to it since its non-free and he kept telling me about
copyright since he was no being helpful i decided to drop it. I am
working on excudo however i need to contact him again to find out staus
on license.

--
Sincerely Yours,
    John Vivirito

https://launchpad.net/~gnomefreak
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JohnVivirito
Linux User# 414246

"How can i get lost, if i have no where to go"
    -- Metallica from UnforgivenIII

Upstream wont help us to fix this issue, due to that we will not package this for use in Ubuntu.