![]() ![]() Whatever the legal aspect with regard to the GPL license, I find that allowing such scammy extension on AMO to be detrimental to developers who do the actual genuine work, and detrimental to AMO by allowing in its repo such parasitical extensions with no actual added value versus the original (actually the opposite given how limited the UI is versus that of Adguard) > “This extension is essentially a copy of Adguard extension for the core code, and essentially a copy of ABP for the user interface aspect. The organization recommended a privacy extension back then in a blog post on the official Firefox blog that had a "phone-home" feature built-into the extension. The situation resembles another blunder by Mozilla that happened in 2018. The response time was very quick this time. One possible outcome of the "looking into it" could be that Mozilla removes the recommendation. Mozilla employee Gian-Carlo Pascutto responded to the thread stating that the organization is looking into it. ![]() It seems like a strange choice considering that the recommended extension appears to use AdGuard code. One of the main objections is that the extension is recommended by Mozilla (AdGuard is not). In the report, he stated that the "extension is essentially a copy of Adguard extension for the core code, and essentially a copy of ABP for the user interface aspect", and that he thought that Firefox users donating to extension developers would surely want to donate to the original developers. Raymond Hill, creator of uBlock Origin and uMatrix, reported the AdBlock Ultimate extension in 2017 but nothing came out of it. The AdBlock Ultimate extension has more users than Adguard currently Adguard has about 322k users, AdBlocker Ultimate 418K. Rémi found mentions of AdGuard throughout the code of AdBlock Ultimate that suggest that code was copied from AdGuard. The code of the extension is very similar to AdGuard, a very popular content blocking solution. Why is recommending an extension which seems to be a copy-pasting from another extension and potentially in copyright infringement? claims to be open-source and GPLv3 so I installed and checked the sources using the debugger. published the following message on Twitter today: One of the recommended extensions, AdBlocker Ultimate, appears to be a copycat extension. Other extensions are reviewed after the fact only, if at all. One of the main differences to regular extensions offered on Mozilla AMO is that recommended extensions are reviewed manually each time a new version is uploaded to Mozilla's site (and initially as well). that extensions need to be safe, but some are not. The new system accepts extensions only if they meet requirements some of these are self-explanatory, e.g. If you want to allow blocking on multiple domains the filter has too look like this: I am the lead developer of Adblock Plus.The system used to select these changed recently from featuring extensions on Mozilla AMO to a stricter system. That's actually easier if you click the "Edit filters as raw text" at the bottom of the "Add your own filters" tab. This will automatically change the filter you've added into something like if you are on Chrome or Opera, there is currently no way to do that automatically - you will have to go into Adblock Plus options and edit the filter manually. Click the cross symbol in the upper-right corner of the blockable items list or press Ctrl+Shift+V again to close blockable items.Choose "Disable this filter on " where is the site you are on. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |