God, it’s not hard to read an article instead of speculate in the comments.
“The new built in blocker will use Brave’s adblock library and run in Waterfox’s main browser process rather than as an extension. Kontos says this should make adblocking faster, more tightly integrated, and less dependent on extension APIs or constant upstream updates.”
He also said Brave’s library was chosen partly because its MPL 2.0 license is a better fit for Waterfox, while deeper integration with a blocker like uBlock Origin would be more complicated because of its GPLv3 license.
Waterfox will still make one exception by default by allowing text ads on its default search partner page, currently Startpage, as a way to support the browser financially. The team clarified that this is Waterfox’s own revenue decision and not something inherited from Brave’s adblocking technology. Users who want stricter blocking will be able to disable all ads with a single setting, while people who already use third party blockers can keep using them as usual.
This, to me, is fine, because I change the default regardless. There’s nothing stopping anyone else from doing the same. Sure, this could potentially open the door for additional “greedy” decisions down the road, but let’s not jump to conclusions.
It’s a bit more complicated than that because MPL is itself a weak copyleft license that requires that the MPL licensed source code is always made available to recipients of a binary or derived work. The difference from GPL is that it does not require that all additional parts of the derived work are also licensed under MPL, (ie. not viral copyleft) meaning that the MPL licensed work can be linked with proprietary code without requiring that the proprietary code make its source available, but unlike BSD or MIT licenses it does not allow the MPL licensed code to be made proprietary.
The complication comes when linking MPL code with GPL code, even though MPL is GPL-compatible, since this requires that the entire derived work must now be made available under the GPL, while the original MPL licensed parts become dual-licensed under both MPL and GPL.
If Waterfox developers allowed this then it would prohibit the use of the whole derived work in proprietary projects (as they would now need to be GPL), so it would be removing rights that they have already given to downstream users of their code. Proprietary projects would therefore have to remove the GPL licensed additions (in this case it would be the UblockOrigin code) and link just the MPL licensed parts, which would mean using only part of the whole browser.
Personally I agree with you: I prefer GPL licensed projects. But MPL is not a bad license and I can understand and respect that some developers would make that choice (especially since the project is already licensed under MPL as it’s a fork of Firefox).
God, it’s not hard to read an article instead of speculate in the comments.
“The new built in blocker will use Brave’s adblock library and run in Waterfox’s main browser process rather than as an extension. Kontos says this should make adblocking faster, more tightly integrated, and less dependent on extension APIs or constant upstream updates.”
He also said Brave’s library was chosen partly because its MPL 2.0 license is a better fit for Waterfox, while deeper integration with a blocker like uBlock Origin would be more complicated because of its GPLv3 license.
Waterfox will still make one exception by default by allowing text ads on its default search partner page, currently Startpage, as a way to support the browser financially. The team clarified that this is Waterfox’s own revenue decision and not something inherited from Brave’s adblocking technology. Users who want stricter blocking will be able to disable all ads with a single setting, while people who already use third party blockers can keep using them as usual.
This, to me, is fine, because I change the default regardless. There’s nothing stopping anyone else from doing the same. Sure, this could potentially open the door for additional “greedy” decisions down the road, but let’s not jump to conclusions.
The aversion to using a GPL library is a red flag for me. It basically says: “we don’t want to grant our users the same rights we have”.
It’s a bit more complicated than that because MPL is itself a weak copyleft license that requires that the MPL licensed source code is always made available to recipients of a binary or derived work. The difference from GPL is that it does not require that all additional parts of the derived work are also licensed under MPL, (ie. not viral copyleft) meaning that the MPL licensed work can be linked with proprietary code without requiring that the proprietary code make its source available, but unlike BSD or MIT licenses it does not allow the MPL licensed code to be made proprietary.
The complication comes when linking MPL code with GPL code, even though MPL is GPL-compatible, since this requires that the entire derived work must now be made available under the GPL, while the original MPL licensed parts become dual-licensed under both MPL and GPL.
If Waterfox developers allowed this then it would prohibit the use of the whole derived work in proprietary projects (as they would now need to be GPL), so it would be removing rights that they have already given to downstream users of their code. Proprietary projects would therefore have to remove the GPL licensed additions (in this case it would be the UblockOrigin code) and link just the MPL licensed parts, which would mean using only part of the whole browser.
Personally I agree with you: I prefer GPL licensed projects. But MPL is not a bad license and I can understand and respect that some developers would make that choice (especially since the project is already licensed under MPL as it’s a fork of Firefox).