The Swiftfox forum is quite interesting

Story: Swiftfox - the perverting of an open source browserTotal Replies: 8
Author Content
tracyanne

Apr 10, 2007
4:40 AM EDT
Jason blocks and locks any post that discusses the fact that he has released the Binaries under a proprietary license, effectively stifling any discussion on the subject. One wonders what it is that his he hiding.

here's my post on the swiftfox forum:

Quoting:tracyanne Guest



Reply with quote Post Swiftfox closed source So why should anyone trust your word that Swiftfox contains no security breaches?

Open Source Software works to provide exceptional security because it is open, and no one has to blindly trust the word of the Open Source Developer. What you have done is create a situation where no one can verify that you personally have not added security holes, and we must take your word for it that you have not done so. Microsoft have proved time and time again that security by obscurity (closed source) is a failure. For what reason should anyone believe that you can now guarantee that your version of security by obscurity will be any better?

Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:26 am Jason Site Admin Joined: 20 Jul 2006 Posts: 167 Location: New York

Reply with quote Post This topic is closed


Another post http://67.18.35.242/-forums.getswiftfox.com/viewtopic.php?t=... attempts to discuss the closed nature of Jason's version of Firefox. It was closed and locked by Jason stopping any further discussion.
helios

Apr 10, 2007
5:09 AM EDT
Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:26 am Jason Site Admin Joined: 20 Jul 2006 Posts: 167 Location: New York

Reply with quote Post This topic is closed

That was enough to urge me into purging every bit of Swiftfox from my machine...silly me for assuming the Licensing was GPL based. I disappoint me sometimes.

h
tracyanne

Apr 10, 2007
5:19 AM EDT
BTW I have been blocked at the IP address level from accessing the Swiftfox forums, indeed the entire Swiftfox server. The only reason I was able to access my post above, was because I used anonymous access.
DarrenR114

Apr 10, 2007
5:47 AM EDT
I wonder if there would be any traction to a trademark infringement suit - since Swiftfox is obviously so closely related to "firefox" and both are web browsers.
bigg

Apr 10, 2007
6:33 AM EDT
This is something I have known for a long time (ie, that it is kept a secret). You have to find out about the binary-only thing from other places. There could be keystroke loggers, security holes, phoning home, or anything else going on. I'm always suspicious when I see freeware.

> I wonder if there would be any traction to a trademark infringement suit - since Swiftfox is obviously so closely related to "firefox" and both are web browsers.

That thought went through my mind when Debian changed to Iceweasel. It is sold as an optimized version of Firefox. That seems to be a much better reason for enforcing the Firefox trademark than the use of a different icon. The front page even says "Optimized Mozilla Firefox Build for Linux". Either it's Firefox or it's not.

devnet

Apr 10, 2007
8:11 AM EDT
If that's the case where you don't know what is inside the binaries, that should be enough for Mozilla to NOT HAVE IT LISTED as an extension on their add-ons site.

I'm writing an email now with this thread as reference to mozilla.
SFN

Apr 10, 2007
11:54 AM EDT
Well, if Jason doesn't want it discussed on the Swiftfox forums, there are lots of other places where it can be discussed. Places with much higher visibility.

Of course, the closed-source story would probably less interesting to most people than the fact that he blocks anybody who brings it up. People love a good cover-up.
bigg

Apr 10, 2007
11:57 AM EDT
> People love a good cover-up.

There's no reason to cover up something unless you have done something wrong. I found out from the Ubuntu forums and immediately got it off my system. I got enough of the spyware-infested binary-only freeware garbage when I used Windows.
tracyanne

Apr 10, 2007
1:39 PM EDT
There is also the possibility that he breaks some clause of the MPL, see this quote (by someone call jcarroll) from that blocked thread on Jason's forum

Quoting:Furthermore, while it is within his legal rights to be so hostile and utterly disrespectful to the free software community (though he currently has overstepped), Mr. Halme does not have the right to keep his modifications under a similarly restrictive situation. If you look at the patch [2] for Swiftfox 2.0.0, you will see that the changes amount to processor-specific compilation, which probably doesn't cause any noticeable gains, and some settings changes which can be achieved just as easily in Firefox. I would encourage you to try changing those settings, and also to try to vanilla version of Firefox from mozilla.org - there have been problems with internationalisation taking priority over performance in Ubuntu's version in the past, especially with Pango support..

[1] Actually, I think he has overstepped in some cases, especially by not distributing source code for some versions:

* By forcing users downloading the source code to agree to his licence in addition to the MPL, he is in violation of section 3.1 of the MPL v1.1, as his licence restricts the applicable version of the MPL to 1.1, which is explicitly disallowed by 3.1.

* Most importantly, it appears that all versions of Swiftfox after 2.0.0 are in violation of the MPL section 3.2, because the contributions to the source code are not provided (2.0.0.2pre has no source code provided at all, 2.0.0.1 has a broken link).

* In addition to the lack of new source code, the license also states that some source code related to branding is being withheld, even though this would seem to be in violation of the MPL as well.

* MPL section 3.5 is violated, because the patches that are available do not include the appropriate notices.

* Update: It appears that MPL sec. 3.6 is also violated, as I am unable to find any of the required conspicuous notices after running Swiftfox.

Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]

Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!