TACO Extension for Firefox Forked After Proprietary Update

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TACO Extension for Firefox Forked After Proprietary Update

Posted by Soulskill on Friday June 18, 2010 @09:31AM from the way-to-commandeer-taco dept.

rtfa-troll writes "Beef Taco is a Firefox extension that allows a mass opt-out from tracking and targeted advertising by many ad networks. The Register reports that the original system, TACO, has become proprietary, and has added new 'features' best described as bloatware. I guess this should serve as a warning for users to always prefer software under a copyleft license where possible. If Google had chosen a license with better protection, such as the GPL, when it released its own opt-out tool, this problem would have been much less likely. This also shows why forks are so important when software development begins to get messy."

139 comments

forks are so important by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 09:34 · Score: 0

Who eats a taco with a fork?
1. Re:forks are so important by rtfa-troll · 2010-06-18 09:40 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Yes; dammit; that was my joke as you can clearly see from the submission but I guess it wasn't funny enough for the greater wisdom of the our Slashdot overlords.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
2. Re:forks are so important by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-06-18 09:46 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Same people who enjoy popsicles with a spoon.
3. Re:forks are so important by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  yes, because a recipe for taco salad was definitely relevant enough to warrant a link in TFS. You call yourself rtfa-troll, yet contribute to people not RTFA by cramming unnecessary bullshit links into your submission.
4. Re:forks are so important by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 16:11 · Score: 0
  
  Yes; dammit; that was my joke as you can clearly see from the submission but I guess it wasn't funny enough for the greater wisdom of the our Slashdot overlords.
  If they actually do edit posts why don't they act like real editors and try some proofreading, or hell even just a spellchecker would be an improvement...
Re:What color? by binarylarry · 2010-06-18 09:36 · Score: 1

You? Definitely not.

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
GPL better exactly how? by fotbr · 2010-06-18 09:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google released theirs with the Apache 2.0 license. Someone else took that, re-wrote (apparently significant) portions and released it with a different name. THAT PERSON then sold it to a company, who then decided to bundle a bunch of for-pay stuff with it. People didn't like it, and forked the previous version.
Exactly HOW would the GPL have been better? There's still a fork of the last "good" version, which you can use if you like.
1. Re:GPL better exactly how? by nunojsilva · 2010-06-18 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  The GPL would forbid the proprietary version.
2. Re:GPL better exactly how? by at_slashdot · 2010-06-18 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. The only thing lost is the name, not sure how important is that, sometimes it might be important....
  
  --
  "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
3. Re:GPL better exactly how? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 09:46 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  If it was GPL'd, then they would have had to release their changes. That means we'd all have the bloatware version of TACO and no irrefutable reason to fork it.
4. Re:GPL better exactly how? by Hatta · 2010-06-18 09:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Someone else took that, re-wrote (apparently significant) portions and released it with a different name. THAT PERSON then sold it to a company, who then decided to bundle a bunch of for-pay stuff with it.
  Had this been GPL, the person who rewrote significant portions of the software would have to have released his derivative works as GPL. He could have sold his portion of the software under any license, but the work as a whole would have to be GPL. The company that bought the rights to the software would have to remove any GPL portion, or release the entire thing (including proprietary addons) under GPL.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
5. Re:GPL better exactly how? by unix1 · 2010-06-18 09:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Exactly HOW would the GPL have been better? There's still a fork of the last "good" version, which you can use if you like.
  The company would have to release the source code (because it would have been a derivative of a GPL software), so their users would know exactly what was added. Then, they could make an educated decision whether to upgrade and continue using the product, or find an alternative/fork. Some would qualify this as "better."
6. Re:GPL better exactly how? by abigor · 2010-06-18 09:50 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  So what?
7. Re:GPL better exactly how? by Sir_Lewk · 2010-06-18 09:52 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  You're on slashdot and you really need this explained to you? Do you even know what copyleft means, or should we start from the top?
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
8. Re:GPL better exactly how? by jorgevillalobos · 2010-06-18 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  The add-on being proprietary or not is pretty much irrelevant. People are complaining about the "bloat" and very different user interface, contrary to what the summary suggests.
9. Re:GPL better exactly how? by srw · 2010-06-18 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm... does anyone remember Mambo?
10. Re:GPL better exactly how? by nunojsilva · 2010-06-18 10:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  As said by others, this would force the proprietary version to be released under the GPL.
  Now, about how much better that is, it would allow you get the newest version and strip off any bloatware. Instead of just forking, you could maintain kind of a parallel fork, stripping each new release, or incorporate useful enhancements in Beef TACO.
11. Re:GPL better exactly how? by abigor · 2010-06-18 10:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yeah, I know that. Let me rephrase: why is it so important to force the proprietary version to be released? It makes no difference. The original code is still sitting there.
12. Re:GPL better exactly how? by Kjella · 2010-06-18 10:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But you're also making the assumption that if the code was under the GPL would he have bothered to rewrite it since the sales value would have been near zero. There's no guarantee there'd be more open code using the GPL, there'd possibly be one less proprietary competitor but the Google explicitly released it under a license that permits it and I doubt they're so incompetent they didn't know it. If Google don't like it then it's their own mistake and they'll choose a better license next time. If they don't care, then this is just someone in the open source community being butthurt over code they didn't get the same way the MAFIAA is over a sale they didn't make.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
13. Re:GPL better exactly how? by Goaway · 2010-06-18 10:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  More realistically, it would force people to rewrite the GPL'd parts when making it proprietary. You'd still be in the exact same situation.
14. Re:GPL better exactly how? by foxtyke · 2010-06-18 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  If the original author re-wrote substantial portions which allowed change of license from the Apache license and then licensed it under the GPL, the sold their rights and copyright to a new buyer, the new buyer has full rights to take future versions closed source provided no other open source code was utilized or a compatible license (BSD) was covering the source code included within the whole of the source.
15. Re:GPL better exactly how? by Darinbob · 2010-06-18 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  GPL software also forks all the time. It's not a big deal. The only argument on the GPL side seems the old dubious "proprietary is evil" one.
  
  The original software did not become proprietary anyway. If it did it would be impossible to fork it legally. Instead, someone added some proprietary chunks to open source software; the original software did not become proprietary and no one lost any rights anywhere regarding this software.
16. Re:GPL better exactly how? by BrettJB · 2010-06-18 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly some do: http://mambo-foundation.org/
  And I suspect at least some of these folks still remember Mambo as well: http://www.joomla.org/
  
  --
  Smell that? You smell that? Burning karma, son. Nothing in the world smells like that...
17. Re:GPL better exactly how? by icebraining · 2010-06-18 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  You would have drained some of the "evil company" resources to do it...muahahah!
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
18. Re:GPL better exactly how? by Kjella · 2010-06-18 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Note to self: Don't try to rewrite sentences without reading them again, the post by Yoda written look.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
19. Re:GPL better exactly how? by Changa_MC · 2010-06-18 10:46 · Score: 2
  
  They based their proprietary version off the work of people they did not pay who had released it into the wild. Under the GPL, they would owe the community something. As it stands, they owe nothing.
  Those who believe that the original copyrighted work had some value, believe the folks who took the work and modified it ought to owe something.
  
  --
  Changa hates change.
20. Re:GPL better exactly how? by erroneus · 2010-06-18 10:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'll field this answer. There is more to it than what a commercial/proprietary interest will not be able to "take" from the community. There is also the moral, ethical and even emotional/spiritual aspects of F/OSS that need to be guarded. I don't use "spiritual" in the religious or supernatural sense either. I mean the "spirit of" meaning sense of the expression. When some people are working to build something and then some jackass comes along and uses it to make his fortune, it really takes the community spirit out of a project. It is rather like "RebelEFI" versus EmpireEFI. EmpireEFI is a nice project. RebelEFI has tainted it with their motives and their generally deceptive and selfish nature.
  So while it is true that the community still has the untainted version(s) available to them, there is still some ugliness that really tends to sap the positive energy out of a project when commercial proprietary for-profit people come along to do selfish things with it. And I don't expect you or anyone else to fully understand it. If you do understand what I am saying, then you probably already agree with me -- so I'm not changing anyone's mind or giving anyone something new to think about by stating any of this. But by seeing and acknowledging this view point and rejecting it for whatever reason, you have to be honest with yourself about who you are inside and what drives and instincts you more closely identify with. If you disagree with the perspective I have expressed, then you are quite likely from the other camp who essentially believes it is okay to use the work of others for your personal gain.
  So in short, part of the benefit of the GPL to to preserve the spirit of open source as well as the software itself.
21. Re:GPL better exactly how? by wampus · 2010-06-18 10:47 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  AC, have my babby.
22. Re:GPL better exactly how? by wampus · 2010-06-18 10:53 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  That has to be the stupidest goddamned thing I have ever read. You audit every piece of software you use? How do you find time to pick bugs out of your neckbeard?
23. Re:GPL better exactly how? by fotbr · 2010-06-18 10:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Except the people who wrote the original work didn't feel that way, so why is it even an issue?
24. Re:GPL better exactly how? by Changa_MC · 2010-06-18 10:55 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  There's no guarantee there'd be more open code using the GPL, there'd possibly be one less proprietary competitor...
  For some people, that's a good thing(TM).
  But really, this whole argument is irrelevant. We have Beef TACO, the hypothetical open-source version that might never have existed. No need to worry about proprietary bloatware.
  
  --
  Changa hates change.
25. Re:GPL better exactly how? by fotbr · 2010-06-18 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  OK, that's pretty much my understanding as well. GPL or not, there most likely would have been a fork anyway at this point when it got so much un-wanted stuff added to it, so Google using GPL instead of the Apache 2.0 license wouldn't have avoided anything.
26. Re:GPL better exactly how? by fotbr · 2010-06-18 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  That's pretty much my point. Why would someone say that Google using the GPL would have avoided the issue? It was an open project that got forked when one party did something others didn't like. With or without the GPL, there'd be a fork if someone added that much extra stuff to what was a very lightweight and fast addon, and there was, no GPL needed.
27. Re:GPL better exactly how? by jim_v2000 · 2010-06-18 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  They already released the source for 3.0: http://www.abine.com/taco_source.php
  
  --
  Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
28. Re:GPL better exactly how? by wrook · 2010-06-18 12:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Exactly HOW would the GPL have been better? There's still a fork of the last "good" version, which you can use if you like.
  There is always a balance when choosing a license. The main advantage (IMHO) with choosing the GPL over something like the Apache
  license is that you don't have to compete against proprietary versions that are based on the code you wrote. As an author this is a
  significant consideration for me. If I am the primary author, it would suck to have features from my free version used with impunity
  when I am unable to use features from the proprietary version. It gives the proprietary version an unfair advantage (unfair in that as
  the primary author I can't enjoy the same privileges).
  However, there are lots of reasons to choose non-copyleft licenses for work. Sometimes the benefit you receive from extended
  exposure outweighs the disadvantage of unfair competition. Given that Google was the primary author and *they* aren't complaining,
  I have to agree with you that there doesn't seem to be a problem. If they got what they want, then it is all good. However, I can
  understand if the authors of the forked version want to use the GPL to avoid having to unfairly compete against the proprietary
  version.
29. Re:GPL better exactly how? by commodore64_love · 2010-06-18 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  +1 informative. NOW I understand the advice not to contribute unless it's GPL copyleft. It protects your volunteer work.
  Question:
  It appears the TACO tool only stops the behavioral advertising. It doesn't stop them from spying on you and seeing which sites you visited. Right?
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
30. Re:GPL better exactly how? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  In the current scenario, the user still gets to make the decision: "Do I use this proprietary closed-source version, or do I use the version with the source code that I can read"?
31. Re:GPL better exactly how? by mysidia · 2010-06-18 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  If you make a work based on a GPL work, even if you "rewrote" parts of it, it is still non-literal copying of the work, if the structure of the program is based on the GPL program, which is copyright infringement (unless you obey the GPL license, and distribute the rewritten non-literal copied work under GPL terms.)
32. Re:GPL better exactly how? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 18:50 · Score: 0
  
  Except the people who wrote the original work didn't feel that way, so why is it even an issue?
  Because of that, it is an issue of persuasion.
  
  If the GPL community grows by having more projects adopt the GPL, everyone in that community benefits from a larger codebase that they can readily use. This is helpful for both the developers and the users. For each developer, it's a question of whether it's helpful in a way that they appreciate and that's what the advocacy or persuasion is about.
33. Re:GPL better exactly how? by rtfa-troll · 2010-06-18 19:19 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  +1 informative. NOW I understand the advice not to contribute unless it's GPL copyleft. It protects your volunteer work.
  Exactly right; lots of of the anti-GPL FUD spread around has it's origin in people, like Microsoft, who don't want you having their work, but feel they have the right to steal yours. There's another group which is specifically doing the free stuff now with the hope of getting people addicted and then doing a bait and switch later (look for FreeBSD developers who switched over to Apple e.g. or Nessus which was under the GPL but with one primary copyright owner who could just change the license). The MIT / X11 people made a really big effort to try to get people to switch from copyleft to unprotected licenses and then almost got away with completely closing X; a big warning against contributing without some protection.
  However there's also a bunch of people who simply disagree. E.g. some of the OpenBSD developers. They really do believe what they say and (I believe) they are doing something good for the sake of it. When you work with these people you get some protection simply from who they are and what they believe. If you have some simple fixes e.g. to OpenSSH, then contributing them back really does save effort and get more F/OSS software written, so the general advice is that you should contribute smaller / more integrated changes directly back to them. When it comes to bigger / more independent changes, e.g. a new library, those might be better in a separate project with a copyleft license.
  
  Question:
  It appears the TACO tool only stops the behavioral advertising. It doesn't stop them from spying on you and seeing which sites you visited. Right?
  TACO seems to opt out of as much as it possibly can. The advertising networks should be "voluntarily" stopping tracking you at that point in order to comply with various privacy laws/regulations/standardards/policies. However, you can't be sure of that. You might find looking at the EFF Panopticlick and other similar privacy tools will help you find out how easily you can be tracked by people who aren't following the "rules".
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
34. Re:GPL better exactly how? by rtfa-troll · 2010-06-18 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  They already made an offer to release the source for 3.0: http://www.abine.com/taco_source.php
  
  FTFY. On their page it says:
  
  To get a local copy of the source just contact us at support@getabine.com
  This is even less than Microsoft shared source. If I was basing something, for example a security audit, on this offer I'd want to know that someone independent had actually downloaded the source and verified that they could build the end module.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
35. Re:GPL better exactly how? by DrXym · 2010-06-18 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  Had this been GPL, the person who rewrote significant portions of the software would have to have released his derivative works as GPL. He could have sold his portion of the software under any license, but the work as a whole would have to be GPL. The company that bought the rights to the software would have to remove any GPL portion, or release the entire thing (including proprietary addons) under GPL.
  Not at all. The Firefox extension could have been under GPL in its entireity, including the part that runs the proprietary executable which is not under GPL. There would be no obligation to disclose that proprietary code because it would reside in a separate executable.
36. Re:GPL better exactly how? by bhtooefr · 2010-06-19 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously it doesn't apply in this case, as it's non-GPL, and it's a fork of another tool, but if TACO were originally written as a GPL program, not a fork of some other tool, and rights to all code submitted stayed with the TACO development team (or external contributions weren't accepted, or weren't made in the first place,) it's possible that when the development team was bought out, they'd have the right to release future versions under a non-GPL license. Look at what happened with XFree86.
37. Re:GPL better exactly how? by dfghjk · 2010-06-19 04:34 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  What a load of crap.
38. Re:GPL better exactly how? by dfghjk · 2010-06-19 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Leading to less choice.
39. Re:GPL better exactly how? by dfghjk · 2010-06-19 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  "As said by others, this would force the proprietary version to be released under the GPL."
  No it wouldn't. The proprietary version would more likely simply not exist.
40. Re:GPL better exactly how? by dfghjk · 2010-06-19 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  The GPL community did not produce the code so they are owed nothing. The developers complied with the wishes of the actual developers.
  "Those who believe that the original copyrighted work had some value, believe the folks who took the work and modified it ought to owe something."
  No they don't. If they did, perhaps they would have chosen another license.
41. Re:GPL better exactly how? by dfghjk · 2010-06-19 04:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The GPL community not only wants their community to grow but it wants others to shrink. Otherwise, this wouldn't be an issue at all. What difference does it make to GPL advocates what happens to non-GPL projects? The answer is simple and revealing.
42. Re:GPL better exactly how? by dfghjk · 2010-06-19 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  "There is more to it than what a commercial/proprietary interest will not be able to "take" from the community. There is also the moral, ethical and even emotional/spiritual aspects of F/OSS that need to be guarded."
  But they didn't "take" from the community, the community gave it to them. It was moral, ethical, and emotional/spiritual as well as all the other BS words you can think to throw into it.
  It's curious that GPL advocates care so much about the desires of the original developers except when those developers don't see things the same way as the GPL does. Then the GPL apparently need to be the champion of what their interests SHOULD be if they weren't so deluded.
43. Re:GPL better exactly how? by dfghjk · 2010-06-19 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Once all the GPL code is removed, what is left of the "structure" that is still GPL? Who could possibly say that the program was based on a "GPL work" at that point (if it ever was)? You can't copyright knowledge or ideas.
44. Re:GPL better exactly how? by dfghjk · 2010-06-19 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  "If I was basing something, for example a security audit, on this offer I'd want to know that someone independent had actually downloaded the source and verified that they could build the end module."
  How would that be any different with a GPL'ed project?
45. Re:GPL better exactly how? by dfghjk · 2010-06-19 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Or he may have rewritten a little more to remove the GPL entirely or he might have not done the project at all. The GPL doesn't promise that future projects will exist. That seems to be hard for for GPL fanboys to understand.
  Oddly enough, the author used existing open source to contribute to a new project in compliance with and in the spirit of the license for that source, yet people complain because THEY can't have the new source despite having contributed to none of it. The GPL wouldn't have promised the source to you anyway, it only promises source to the users of the work.
46. Re:GPL better exactly how? by mysidia · 2010-06-19 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  You can copyright a form and means of expression of knowledge or ideas.
  The structure of a program is often developed along with the source code itself in the form of what programmers commonly call a "design"
  For example, in an OO program, you might make a class diagram of the software, with a list of classes, and methods for each class. This is often part of the normal process of develping software, and some of the basic elements of the structure are often developed first, in that manner.
  If that program is GPL, and you take it, and write all the same classes from scratch, and even all the methods from scratch, not re-using any _code_ from the GPL program...
  It is still non-literal copying, because the structure of the program is the same.
  The actual code in your functions may be completely new, but the choice of how you arranged those functions, and what each function did is substantially similar to the original product.
  Anyways, the GPL doesn't apply just to "parts of a program", it applies to packages as a whole, and every part.
  If part of the structure of the program was specified by someone who released their work under the GPL, then the entirety of the code and structure they contributed are GPL.
  It may even be that code someone wanted to release under less-strict terms, actually cannot legally be released under less-strict terms, due to GPL infringement.
  The structure of one part of a program tends to be copied into another part of the program... this is commonly referred to as "calling a function"
  Also, the entire package is the body of a work. Re-writing parts of it to be functionally equivalent does not change the body of the work. It is still substantially similar (in the non-literal copying sense), and therefore, infringement to redistribute without a license.
47. Re:GPL better exactly how? by causality · 2010-06-19 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  The GPL community not only wants their community to grow but it wants others to shrink. Otherwise, this wouldn't be an issue at all. What difference does it make to GPL advocates what happens to non-GPL projects? The answer is simple and revealing.
  The community isn't a solid block of harmony wherein all members share the exact same opinion of non-GPL projects. Still, assuming you are 100% correct in all cases, I have no problem with that either. Why? Because they are doing it the right way, through persuasion and voluntary cooperation and not through coercion or force. Each owner of each project can decide how their code will be licensed. The GPL community is not going to send goons to intimidate them into eschewing proprietary licenses. They might make arguments to that effect and attempt to convince those owners, but as that does not involve force or fraud there is nothing wrong with it. This is the correct way to effect a change that you believe in.
  
  The difference it makes is rather easy to discern. If you can convince a proprietary project to release code under the GPL, the community can benefit from freely reusing that code. This enriches their codebase and prevents programmers from wasting effort by reinventing wheels. It also reflects the non-scarcity of existing code; once written, infinite perfect copies can be made and shared at zero or near-zero cost. It constitutes a rejection of the more typical use of copyright law which is to enforce artificial scarcity.
  
  What's simple and revealing is that anyone would complain about the GPL community's desires and intentions when they are free to choose not to participate in that community. It's like the people who call up a radio talk-show host to tell him how much they hate his guts, yet they are familiar with all of his past shows. That they don't have to listen to something they dislike doesn't seem to occur to them.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
48. Re:GPL better exactly how? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-19 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  LOL wot? who said the people who wrote the code thought it had value?
49. Re:GPL better exactly how? by yuhong · 2010-06-19 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  And funny thing is, the GPL allow a written offer to physically distribute the source code to qualify as compliance. In fact, it is required if the object code is distributed physically too, as for example GPL code inside a flash ROM inside a physical device. (Yep, exactly what you think it is.)
50. Re:GPL better exactly how? by yuhong · 2010-06-19 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  In fact, it is required if the object code is distributed physically too, as for example GPL code inside a flash ROM inside a physical device.
  
  In GPLv2, that is. I forgot to mention that GPLv3 removes that requirement.
51. Re:GPL better exactly how? by rtfa-troll · 2010-06-21 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Wow; what an intellectual tour de force. I just don't know how to respond to your brilliant insight. Your eloquence and brilliant arguments just converted me immediately.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Dupe story is dupe by surveyork · 2010-06-18 09:40 · Score: 2, Informative

This story is a dupe of: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=13491118 I know it. I submitted it.

--
2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
1. Re:Dupe story is dupe by rtfa-troll · 2010-06-18 19:41 · Score: 1
  It isn't a dupe till yours gets accepted on the front page. In fact yours would be the dupe then. Mine is a better statement of the story. Anyway
  
  You failed to use the word "Fork" in the title; no pulling FOSS junkies standard strings
  
  Your links were all badly formatted, showing the URL rather than a reasonable text
  
  The link to the new forked software was too far down.
  
  Your first sentence qualifies for a tl;dr
  
  Loser.
  
  And following on from that bout of maturity; naaahah naaaah neee naaa naa.
  Seriously though; I'm guessing mine was closer to "house style" and so I am the winner
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
2. Re:Dupe story is dupe by surveyork · 2010-06-19 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  There was another story about TACO after mine. Don't remember if it was before yours. I don't care much. Slashdot works this way. I accept it. I can live with it.
  
  --
  2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
Shouldn't that be sporked? by Sir_Dill · 2010-06-18 09:43 · Score: 1

Ba dum dum!
No, just a fork... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2010-06-18 09:44 · Score: 5, Funny

It's not a dupe, it's a FORK! Quit your complaining...

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
1. Re:No, just a fork... by surveyork · 2010-06-18 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  XD It's a fork, yes. But it's also bloatware.
  
  --
  2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
2. Re:No, just a fork... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2010-06-18 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing says a story fork has to be lighter, though at Slashdot it usually is - lighter on facts generally!
  
  --
  "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
you change the terms, you change the name by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 09:47 · Score: 0

sorry, but it should not be called TACO 3.0, but SHIT TACO
Re:THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM !! by B'Trey · 2010-06-18 09:53 · Score: 1

Not sure what you're saying is not a problem - the change to TACO or the forked Beef TACO. If you're talking about the changes to the original, I sort of agree with you. I can understand people being upset over the size expansion, particularly if it slows down Firefox or significantly increases its memory footprint, but is there any real problem with the changes that makes this some sort of malware? So far as I can tell, there's no malicious activity associated with the update. It's just big and bloated but does offer some significant new and useful functionality. Assuming that to be the case, I think the hysteria is a bit overblown.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
CmdrTaco by tepples · 2010-06-18 09:53 · Score: 1

sorry, but it should not be called TACO 3.0, but
How about "Rob Malda"?
I removed it right away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 09:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

The TACO guys did it wrong. First, they changed what the add-on fundamentally did. Second, they slapped their company name all over the thing. Third, they displayed a pop-up after the update. Fourth, they loaded a web page after the update. Fifth, that web page was loaded with lots of "selling" language but no substance.
They triggered every single warning about malware I have in my brain. I didn't even bother to look into what it was they were trying to sell. I uninstalled the add-on immediately.
I'd say this is example #1 in the upcoming book, How Not To Commercialize A Firefox Add-on.
1. Re:I removed it right away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 10:00 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Was similarly surprised with how TACO changed.
2. Re:I removed it right away by Luckyo · 2010-06-18 11:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "How not to commercialize an anti-commercial firefox addon"
3. Re:I removed it right away by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-20 18:43 · Score: 0
  
  The TACO guys did it wrong. First, they changed what the add-on fundamentally did. Second, they slapped their company name all over the thing. Third, they displayed a pop-up after the update. Fourth, they loaded a web page after the update. Fifth, that web page was loaded with lots of "selling" language but no substance.
  I agree that all four points are worthy of consideration, but the damn thing shows that silly popup every time I blink. Browse to another page -- popup. Change tabs - popup. Go back to the previous tab - popup. Refresh a page - popup. Sneeze - popup? After a few minutes of that nonsense, I uninstalled it.
Going commercial: not just for money-grabbers by hkmwbz · 2010-06-18 09:54 · Score: 1

It can feel frustrating when something you are using goes from free to commercial. You often get the "sold out" feeling.
But there's also a different perspective:
If someone makes something, and loves working on it, why wouldn't he want to try to be able to work in it full-time? But to do so, he needs income. He needs to survive. I suppose he could ask for donations, but that might not be a viable option.
It can be frustrating for the rest of us, but personally, I understand it if someone would want to work on something they love working on, and make money at the same time.

--
Clever signature text goes here.
1. Re:Going commercial: not just for money-grabbers by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 16:33 · Score: 0
  
  It can be frustrating for the rest of us, but personally, I understand it if someone would want to work on something they love working on, and make money at the same time.
  +1
  This made open-source and other things we value successfull... RedHat, SuSe & IBM for Linux, JBoss for JBoss, and Netscape/Google for Mozilla Foundation and Firefox. It may be frustrating, but any sufficiently complex software requires commercial backing to change the world.
2. Re:Going commercial: not just for money-grabbers by rtfa-troll · 2010-06-18 18:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It can feel frustrating when something you are using goes from free to commercial. You often get the "sold out" feeling.
  I love when something free goes commercial. Red Hat is one of my favourite companies. What annoys me is when something "Free" goes proprietary. These are are two very different things. For such a license change Mozilla should be insisting on a change of name so that people who don't want the change still have their computer free of that stuff.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
This is good news by gooman · 2010-06-18 09:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

Just last week I got a notice to "upgrade" TACO to 3.0 and foolishly did so. A tiny little 8KB add-on became a 3MB disaster. Now it has new features which clash with other add ons or were redundant for me. Music streaming was broken for some sites and best of all, the old version, while available (and compatible), will no longer install on Firefox 3.6.
After uninstalling it, I downloaded the source for 2.0 and was planning attempt a fix, but now I don't have to. Obviously someone else was just as irritated, to that individual I say, "Thank you."

--
"Kittens give Morbo gas!"
Forked After Proprietary Update? by BoppreH · 2010-06-18 10:04 · Score: 5, Informative

I thought it was forked only because of the bloatware, not the license as the headline suggests ("meaningful headline in slashdot", etc etc).

Actually, the fork's author only mention about the license in his blog post was:

This classic version didn’t have much to it, and what’s more it was licensed under the Apache 2.0 License. Fork’s Away!
If I read that correctly, he seemed happy about the license only because it allowed him to fork it.
1. Re:Forked After Proprietary Update? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 18:04 · Score: 0
  
  This is John Hobbs (the forker, is that how you would say it?).
  You are right, I like the license because it let me fork. I'm an MIT license guy personally, but I'm just happy it was released under any open license. It seems to have a very strange heritage if you go back from 2.0 down, several authors and re-writes.
  As far as commercializing, they are welcome to it, and they can keep their source to themselves. I wouldn't want to try and wade through the 3.0 code anyway.
2. Re:Forked After Proprietary Update? by dfghjk · 2010-06-19 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  That's right, not all code is gold and not all forced code releases represent value.
Re:THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM !! by X0563511 · 2010-06-18 10:07 · Score: 1

It's a troll/bot post. Move along.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Mambo? by warrax_666 · 2010-06-18 10:09 · Score: 1

Are you talkin' about Number Five?

--
HAND.
1. Re:Mambo? by srw · 2010-06-18 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you've heard of Joomla! ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joomla which was basically my point. Today, if you think "Free CMS" you'll probably think "Joomla!" long before you think of Mambo, who mishandled the open-sourciness of an open/closed joint project.
They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Sonny_Jimbod · 2010-06-18 10:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

This way, they can sell the data on and still stick to their 'privacy policy': "Our Abine browser add-on uses hashes of unique identifiers that are not tied to you or your IP address, to help you track versions and updates for the add-on, and a different set of randomly generated identifiers to validate service requests such as creating or updating disposable email addresses. If you chose to provide more data in order to take advantage of additional services, such as webmail, add-on identifiers are never used in a way that ties it to your name or personal information to the best of our ability." Also, Eric Jung is on their 'Advisory board': http://abine.com/team.php If you don't know who he is, he is a board member of Mozilla Add-Ons governing board. This 'update' has made a mockery of the update mechanism in Firefox and severely undermines it in my view. Here's a link to the support board over at Abine, where I have been voicing my disapproval and I recommend you do the same: https://www.getabine.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7&start=10#p37
1. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Sonny_Jimbod · 2010-06-18 10:33 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It gets worse, check this page out: http://forums.passwordmaker.org/index.php/topic,1654.0.html Surely it's a massive conflict of interest for Eric Jung to be a board member of the Mozilla Add-ons governing board and to be actively working on an Add-on, especially one like this?
2. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by jorgevillalobos · 2010-06-18 10:33 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Also, Eric Jung is on their 'Advisory board': http://abine.com/team.php If you don't know who he is, he is a board member of Mozilla Add-Ons governing board.
  
  Wrong. Eric Jung is on the board of Mozdev, and independent organization dedicated to hosting Mozilla-related projects (like a specialized Sourceforge). He is not part of the Mozilla Add-ons team.
  I'm in charge of the add-on review process at Mozilla, and I personally reviewed and approved the TACO update due to its complexity. I have no relationship with Abine whatsoever.
3. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Sonny_Jimbod · 2010-06-18 10:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Then why does it say that on the Abine site. I'm sorry, but you should be ashamed to let this past you. It went from 8K to 3MB, that is not a simple update and I fear this is breeding a lot of mistrust in the Firefox update mechanism. How are you going to regain users trust after this?
4. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by jorgevillalobos · 2010-06-18 10:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The page was wrong, and it looks like they updated it already.
  The update was approved because it passes all our quality checks. It is not up to us to determine what features a developer can include or not, and it is not a new thing for an add-on to change hands like this. It is up to the developers (new or otherwise) to give their users what they want. If they screw up, they will lose their users. Our job is to make sure the add-on is safe to use and it does what it claims it does. The new TACO has a ton of new features, most disabled by default, but its core functionality remains.
  Most users are complaining about the package size and the new user interface, which are things that won't get the add-on rejected unless they make it unusable, and that it not the case for TACO. I see nothing to be ashamed about.
5. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Sonny_Jimbod · 2010-06-18 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  The problem was, this wasn't an update, it was a total rewrite. Therefore I feel you were wrong to let this be allowed to downloaded via updating TACO 2.0. This should have been treated as an entirely seperate Add-on and it was very deceptive for it to be included in the TACO 2.0 update. Maybe it's time to have rules that state if the Add-ons original function, codebase or license changes radically then it shouldn't be allowed to update via the Firefox update mechanism?
6. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by jorgevillalobos · 2010-06-18 11:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  We have an unexpected features policy, also called No Surprises. We wouldn't have allowed the update if it enabled unexpected features for users, or if it had really changed its core functionality. But it didn't. It added several features, but they are also privacy and security tools, and they're turned off by default.
  I don't agree that we should warn about codebase changes, since that's the developer's prerogative, but I do agree that we should communicate privacy policy or EULA changes. That's something that we can't do through Firefox at the moment, but we definitely want to include in the future.
7. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Sonny_Jimbod · 2010-06-18 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  I would really like to see the ability for me to see if an Add-on changes it's EULA during an update. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions.
8. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Luckyo · 2010-06-18 12:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We have an unexpected features policy, also called No Surprises. We wouldn't have allowed the update if it enabled unexpected features for users, or if it had really changed its core functionality. But it didn't. It added several features, but they are also privacy and security tools, and they're turned off by default.
  So, in your opinion, a change that makes an add-on with no interface that just works out of the box with no interface elements at all into an add-on that adds multiple interface elements, pop-ups on pretty much every page (as almost every nominally popular site nowadays uses cookies in one form or another), and begins by flashing an introduction menu that contains among other things advertisement for "premium service"...
  Is not a change that changes core functionality?
  I mean really. One can split hairs and claim that it's "an add-on that generally protects your privacy by opting out of...", but in my, and apparently pretty much everyone's opinion, the sudden appearance of "features" like interface, pop-ups etc is a very, very serious change to core functionality. Which was from end-users point of view to STFU and just opt us out.
  The worst part is, this approval essentially dropped my trust towards Mozilla's auto-update function and add-on review process from full one hundred to zero. Because trust is hard earned (and mind you, you earned it with your hard work so far), and lost over one major failure. And allowing a hijack like this to be piggy backed as an "update" is a pretty damn major breach of trust. Whether you like it or not, this raises a question if the next update that you will decide that change is "minor" will get our UI painted full of targeted ads, which apparently will pass your check just as well so long as ads are relevant to core functionality of an add-on?
  For the next time: if an add-on that previously required no user action other then installation and didn't do anything to tell user about itself starts using flashy pop-ups to advertise itself, adds elements to UI and gets a flashy configuration window with advertisements for its host company, it's a change of core functionality for end user. Even if developer in you feels it's a "small upgrade", for end user it will be a major change and in this case, a game breaking one.
9. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by jorgevillalobos · 2010-06-18 12:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  What I've been trying to communicate here is that it is not our job to judge if an add-on is pretty or ugly, lightweight or bloated, subtle or in-your-face. Our job is to attest for its security, privacy protection, usefulness and ease of use. We reject add-ons that are impossible to figure out, have overly intrusive UI, or are annoying to users. The previous TACO did have some UI, little as it was, and the new one can be configured to be like that.
  I know the new TACO is annoying to many, but I'm sure many others think otherwise. It's obvious that many TACO users like the minimalist interface it used to have, and are angered by the change, but that's something that the users need to judge, not us. There's already an alternative available if you want to switch.
  And yes, when we say "core functionality", in this case it would mean warning about cookies and other trackers, and providing the means to block them.
  FWIW, the people at Abine are well aware of the reception of this upgrade, and are already working on improving it.
10. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 12:44 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  You are beginning to sound like an Astroturfer, tbh. Is there any chance someone other than yourself could carry out a code review?
11. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 13:14 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  +1
  All the comments moaning about licenses miss this point:
  Any Firefox extension you have could be bought out and converted into something you don't like. And Mozilla (at least in the person of the reviewer who approved the changes to TACO) offers only limited protection from this.
  The Changing of Defaults and Unexpected Features add-ons policy appears to address what an add-on does when it's first installed. It doesn't adequately address notifications of changes pushed in updates to add-on functionality.
12. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by jorgevillalobos · 2010-06-18 13:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Feel free to review it yourself if you like. Here's all the necessary information:
  Our policies
  Editor Guide
  Code validator
  You can also send a message to our mailing list (see wiki link) and ask another editor to corroborate.
13. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Sonny_Jimbod · 2010-06-18 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  But it's not open source?
14. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by jorgevillalobos · 2010-06-18 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  Extensions by their nature have most of their source code in the open. You can easily read it, but not copy it of course. There's a part of this extension that is compiled code and you won't be able to read, though. Senior reviewers do get access to the compiled component source code in order to review.
15. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Luckyo · 2010-06-18 16:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What I've been trying to communicate here is that it is not our job to judge if an add-on is pretty or ugly, lightweight or bloated, subtle or in-your-face.
  Except that it is. The very name of the policy, "No Suprises" clearly shows intent to prevent massive change from subtle to in-your-face, as you put it.
  The problem that we have reading your replies is that you chose to go with utterly classic response that corrupt officials and companies go with when they get caught. They proceed to find a small ambiguous technicality in the letter of the policy, while murdering the entire spirit of the said policy in progress, smiling in and proclaiming their complete innocence and blaming the policy. The entire wording of the name of the policy clearly suggests that you are there to weed out "subtle to in-your-face" changes. Yet because of technicality in the policy that you as a mod can use every time you want, it actually means absolutely nothing. Nothing in it actually stops you as a moderator from, for example, paying back a "monetary favor" by allowing a company that purchased a known add-on from making it a targeted advertisement add-on, full with annoying pop-ups, as long as it mainly does what it did before. Even if doing it is a small fraction of the new version and bulk is focused around selling unwanted crap, and in fact flies in the face of everything the previous versions of add-on stood for.
  I'm sorry, but this stinks. In a major way. It essentially means that the moment someone finds a morally weak spot in the mod chain, millions of end users can be literally fucked over with no recourse whatsoever.
  And it's the lack of recourse that's most bothersome. There isn't even a way to properly complain about a clear breach of trust issue, because it still adheres to letter of the policy, even if spirit of it is murdered in the process, at least according to you.
  I think AC below put it best:
  
  The Changing of Defaults and Unexpected Features [mozilla.org] add-ons policy appears to address what an add-on does when it's first installed. It doesn't adequately address notifications of changes pushed in updates to add-on functionality.
  Essentially there's a nice and functional loophole in the policy that allows anyone with sufficient interest in the issue to circumvent the policy entirely by publishing new add-on as a continuation of a popular existing one and making sure that mod happens to be someone he knows well enough and owes a favor, or is sufficiently naive to imagine that this isn't a "surprising change". This in spite of add-on update policy naming scheme that clearly shows that it was its intent to do the same as policy on what review happens when add-on is first installed.
  Once again, the stench can be felt even across the internet.
16. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 17:28 · Score: 0
  
  Except that it is. The very name of the policy, "No Suprises" clearly shows intent to prevent massive change from subtle to in-your-face, as you put it.
  TACO 3.0 still does cookies... what's your problem? Sounds like they did their job unless there's malware... which there isn't.
  
  The problem that we have reading your replies is that you chose to go with utterly classic response that corrupt officials and companies go with when they get caught.
  You're an idiot. Really.
  
  Nothing in it actually stops you as a moderator from, for example, paying back a "monetary favor" by allowing a company that purchased a known add-on from making it a targeted advertisement add-on, full with annoying pop-ups, as long as it mainly does what it did before.
  
  Ehm, interesting hypothetical, but... there are no pop-up ads in the TACO update, so how is this relevant again?
  
  ...a morally weak spot in the mod chain, millions of end users can be literally fucked over with no recourse whatsoever.
  
  Dude, they did their job... If you don't like the software, uninstall it and roll it back.
  
  ...sufficient interest in the issue to circumvent the policy entirely by publishing new add-on as a continuation of a popular existing one and making sure that mod happens to be ...
  Huh?
  
  Once again, the stench can be felt even across the internet.
  Probably your breath, though. Flaming the add-on editors for doing their job seems kinda pointless.
17. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by rtfa-troll · 2010-06-18 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for that; now I understand your policy clearly; that you insisted on the features being switched off and that you would have liked to warn about the license, I'm much happier about the Mozilla update process than I was. Is there any bug related to the lack of license change notification that we can vote for??
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
18. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by rtfa-troll · 2010-06-18 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  You are beginning to sound like an Astroturfer
  c'mon. Astroturfers by definition do not identify themselves. He's clear about who he is, why he's involved etc.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
19. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by eloquent_loser · 2010-06-18 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  "We reject add-ons that are impossible to figure out, have overly intrusive UI, or are annoying to users."
  Strangely, you have summarized most succinctly my exact impressions of the new TACO. Yet still it remains.
  
  --
  The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. -- Percy Bysshe Shelley
20. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by rtfa-troll · 2010-06-18 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  My problem with this, and the reason why I'm willing to accept the policy as it stands is that I'm constantly surprised by the new features in NoScript. However this is in a good way. I find it solving problems I had never even realised I had and that, once I know about them I realise I wanted them solved. Adding features is a good thing. It's very difficult to write a policy which says which features should be allowed and which not. The easiest way is to make sure that those that might have a privacy implication or similar have to be turned off by default. The real problem which remains is that the people chose the software believing that it's license would protect them. They could always tell what software they had and fix it if something bad did happen. Instead a license change took away that right. That's what Mozilla should be protecting against.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
21. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-19 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  The problem was, this wasn't an update, it was a total rewrite. Therefore I feel you were wrong to let this be allowed to downloaded via updating TACO 2.0.
  
  So now developers are not allowed to rewrite their code?? Brilliant.
  Let's apply this not just to Firefox, but also to Linux, Apache, etc... IF YOU WANT TO REWRITE A SOURCE FILE, YOU MUST CHANGE THE NAME AND RESTART VERSION NUMBERS AT 1.0
  Oh, wait, are you a long-time BSD user perchance?? That might explain it.
22. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Sonny_Jimbod · 2010-06-19 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well excuse me for picking a scab as it were, but why isn't it ALL open? What are they trying to hide, apart from their incestuous relationship between the Mozilla devs and Abine?
23. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by DeanFox · 2010-06-19 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  jorgevillalobos (1044924): I'm in charge of the add-on review process at Mozilla, and I personally reviewed and approved the TACO update due to its complexity. ...I see nothing to be ashamed about.
  That's a problem. And thanks for warning us that you're in-charge. This TACO "upgrade" in your face commercialization was a HUGE surprise. If you don't understand what "No Surprises" means... That's a problem. Now unfortunately, because someone like you is in-charge, automatic upgrades are off. 100% will now have to be reviewed before acceptance. You and your supposed function have now become untrusted and thus irrelevant. Although, if you're incapable of understanding "No Surprises" I doubt you comprehend trust either.
  
  -[d]-
24. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Sonny_Jimbod · 2010-06-19 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't do their job properly. They said they have a policy of 'No Suprises' and it's absolutely clear that this update surprised the hell out of a lot of people. How would you like it if your nice XP system suddenly turned into Vista, because of an 'upgrade'?
25. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-19 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  My problem with this, and the reason why I'm willing to accept the policy as it stands is that I'm constantly surprised by the new features in NoScript. However this is in a good way. I find it solving problems I had never even realised I had and that, once I know about them I realise I wanted them solved. Adding features is a good thing.
  Agreed. Seems like this upgrade was also solving problems you might know you had, though?
  
  The easiest way is to make sure that those that might have a privacy implication or similar have to be turned off by default.
  Which they were in this TACO upgrade...
26. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by jorgevillalobos · 2010-06-19 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Commercial add-ons commonly hide their code to avoid "the competition" to just grab it and use it.
27. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by jorgevillalobos · 2010-06-19 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  I know it's very hard for some people to understand that not all commercial companies are out there to get them, with evil plots to steal their identity and money. You must think that Abine is this all-powerful corporation that bribes all editors and is scheming to take all innocent, OSS-loving TACO users and screw them over. Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you. If you think this update is harmful to the general public (and I would disagree), then that's a problem with our policies, and ultimately my problem.
  Mozilla is one of the most open organizations in the world, and there are multiple channels you can use to complain or to try to get this decision reversed. Or you can continue with your conspiracy theories and proud indignation because you don't like the new version of a program.
28. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Sonny_Jimbod · 2010-06-19 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Can we have an option in Mozilla to completely block any Add-on that is commerical? I use Firefox as I like supporting open source, not to put money in the pockets of shady companies.
29. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-19 14:51 · Score: 0
  
  This isn't the right place to ask for that. File a bug at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org. It's a good idea but it'll be ignored here.
30. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-20 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, but it failed that test. When the add-on updated I was so surprised I removed it for fear of the harm it might do.
31. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by Sonny_Jimbod · 2010-06-20 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  Your attitude towards this is what giving me conspiracy theories. How about listening to our concerns rather than calling us a bunch of tin-foil hatters? I really think this would be better handled by another Dev, who can actually understand why so many people are upset by this. I've been speaking to Eric Jung and he agrees that this was handled very, very badly. The only upside of this are that we have found that we cannot trust the Add-on devs to act for the good of the users.
32. Re:They are 'anonymising' the data then selling it by jorgevillalobos · 2010-06-21 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  I was replying to somebody who was questioning my work ethics. I'm sorry if the response was harsh. I also agree that Abine could've handled things much better, but that doesn't mean that they broke our rules. Whether we should change our rules about this is a matter of debate, and we'll surely be talking about it these days.
TACO extension? by syousef · 2010-06-18 10:17 · Score: 0, Troll

Is that some sort of euphemism for vaginal plastic surgery? They're having them extended nowadays?

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Mozilla should pull them by mrmeval · 2010-06-18 10:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

And perpetually ban that developer/team/company from every having access again.

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
1. Re:Mozilla should pull them by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2010-06-18 11:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And perpetually ban that developer/team/company from every having access again.
  Or change their rules for updates, because according to the "official" Mozilla response, TACO 3.0 passed all the requirements. Mozilla doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
  
  --
  "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
It's not like it's never happened before. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 11:22 · Score: 0

DownThemAll... oh how the mighty have fallen.
Not all new "features" are turned off by default by rwade · 2010-06-18 12:37 · Score: 1

It added several features...and they're turned off by default.
What about the icons in the bottom right and top right of the display? What about that silly and obtrusive notification window that pops up? I'd say those are new features that were enabled.
And according to the Register article linked, it slowed down the browser.
Their Advisory board members dirty laundry by Sonny_Jimbod · 2010-06-18 13:04 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.getabine.com/team.php Jules Polonetsky - Co chair of Future of Privacy Forum, which coincidently enough was funded by AT&T. No conflict of interest there. Chief Privacy Officer at DoubleClick, you know, the people who sell lots and lots of adverts on the internet? Seems strange that he would be interested in something that was designed to stop that? Jim Jorgensen - CEO of AllAdvantage, you probably won't remember the name but you probably remember them as the company that tried to pioneer 'Paid to Surf' by bombarding users with adverts. Again, why would he be interested in something designed to thwart that? Why are these people interested in a company that seems to have no others means of making money apart from charging $50 to take down a youtube video? http://www.getabine.com/deleteme/request.php?item=youtube This company stinks, I'll continue digging because I'm sure there's more
Wrong TACO by Mister+Fright · 2010-06-18 13:46 · Score: 1

Damn. From the title of this story, I thought there was a Firefox extension for the ACM's Transaction on Architecture and Code Optimization.
Re:Not all new "features" are turned off by defaul by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 16:22 · Score: 0

What about the icons in the bottom right and top right of the display?
Easily turned-off.

What about that silly and obtrusive notification window that pops up?
That window displays cookie & tracking information the first time you visit a site during a given browser session. It comes up once per site per session, and is easily turned off permanently with one click.
Basically, it is an alternative to the nice Ghostery add-on.

I'd say those are new features that were enabled.

And according to the Register article linked, it slowed down the browser.
Did it slow down your browser?
Hilarious that Google is releasing ad-opt out code by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 17:51 · Score: 0

LOL, trust Google, but not the add-on authors...
Re:Not all new "features" are turned off by defaul by rwade · 2010-06-18 18:16 · Score: 1

My point is that there are new features that were enabled by default. Doesn't matter if it's easily turned off.
"Open taco" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 18:35 · Score: 0

Who else thought of porn? Me and mah blue cojones...
Re: DoubleClick by TaoPhoenix · 2010-06-18 20:59 · Score: 1

Except it doesn't! And I find it hysterical that ... Slashdot uses doubleclick!
Here is a list of their opt-outs. To me it's like a grab so that they smash 100 competitors in one shot.
Oh look. The lameness filter can't tell between an informative list and an awful string of letters!
So I'll do it the non-TealDeer way. Go ahead & install it. Then not only look at the list without doubleclick in it, but put Ghostery on and then open Slashdot. "Nary a privacy problem to be had!!"

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Whoa - 1st link = malware!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 22:00 · Score: 0

Don't download the plugin via that first link. I just spend a while cleaning up a toxic cocktail of malwares.
Re:Not all new "features" are turned off by defaul by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-19 06:49 · Score: 0

My point is that there are new features that were enabled by default. Doesn't matter if it's easily turned off.
It does matter, and is normal practice for FF if the features are related to addons original purpose. Example: NoScript.
Updated Wikipedia entry for Soghoian by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-19 08:08 · Score: 0

In 2010 Soghoian sold out the users of his TACO firefox extension to a commercial company called Abine. This company promptly turned it into a commercial venture with popups and bloatware, exploding the extension from less than 100Kb to over 3Mb. Soghoian has expressed no remorse to date over his actions.
NO - they are not collecting or selling data by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-19 15:26 · Score: 0

WRONG. They are not collecting any data, and they're not selling it to anyone. Their privacy policy clearly says that's not happening, the source code shows it's not happening, and there are plenty of credible people around this company to further confirm it's not happening.