https://mobile.twitter.com/Pythux/status/1154403982342852609
It looks like it is just a repackaged a AdGuard in a way that complies with the GPLv3 license of the original project.
Sure, morally, it is questionable at best. But it looks like it is legal, does exactly what it says, and doesn't harm users in any way. Furthermore, it is highly rated with a lot of downloads.
While I admit I'd rather not be supporting a ripoff, I don't think it is Mozilla's job to check the morals of developers unless there is a direct risk for users.
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.
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I see no point in promoting an outdated fork when you can recommend the better, fresher, original extension.
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.
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.
It's like a movie recommendation engine that preeminently features Howard the Duck or something. It's not malicious or illegal but its recommendations are probably useless.
Personally, I'm entirely OK with Mozilla exercising some editorial judgment here. In many ways, Mozilla only exists because of moral judgment about technology. And thank goodness. Without them, we might all still be stuck on IE: https://eev.ee/blog/2020/02/01/old-css-new-css/
The resolution of the trailer is 160x120
> If the add-on is a fork of another add-on, the name must clearly distinguish it from the original and provide a significant difference in functionality and/or code.
If anyone considers the addon to be in violation of this policy, they can use the “report for abuse” link halfway down the AMO page. Be sure to cite the policy paragraph and to politely explain why it violates the policy. The AMO review team may or may not agree, but at the very least they’ll consider it.
This seems like something that should apply to inclusion in the add-on site, NOT to inclusion as an explicitly "recommended" add-on.
Recommended add-ons should, in my mind, be recommended for some actual reason beyond "is not malicious"
If you replace all copyright notices with your own, it's illegal.
The GPLv3 license, like most OSS licenses, does not give you the right to assert copyright on a piece of work.