Re: [directory-discuss] Urgent: uBlock non-free issue

[Joshua Gay]

On 06/22/2015 12:08 PM, David Englund/Hedlund wrote:
> On 2015-06-22 16:27, Joshua Gay wrote:
>> On 06/21/2015 10:33 PM, David Englund/Hedlund wrote:
>>> Please read https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/issues/1461
>>>
>>> Consider to approve these entries again, personally I won't do it.
>>>
>>>   * https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/UBlock
>>>   * https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin
>>>
>>>
>> I would like to understand this issue better. Is a "filter" just a list
>> of domain names that need to be blocked or is it something else?
>>
>> Can you link to an example file or files that uBlock downloads or installs?
>>
>> Josh
>>
> 
> Filter subscriptions that is part of uBlock and enabled by default and
> missing licenses:
> 
>   * Malware Domain List‎
>     
> <chrome://ublock/content/assets/thirdparties/www.malwaredomainlist.com/hostslist/hosts.txt>
>     (malwaredomainlist.com) -
>     http://www.malwaredomainlist.com/hostslist/hosts.txt
>     <http://www.malwaredomainlist.com>
>   * Malware domains‎ -
>     http://mirror1.malwaredomains.com/files/justdomains
>     
> <chrome://ublock/content/assets/thirdparties/mirror1.malwaredomains.com/files/justdomains>
> 
> 
> An example of a filter subscription that is part of uBlock, not enabled
> by default, distributed as non-free software: Anti-Adblock Killer |
> Reek‎ (raw.githubusercontent.com) -
> https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer/blob/master/anti-adblock-killer-filters.txt
> 
> 
> Please install uBlock and look into "3rd-party filters" to best
> understand: https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/releases

It's hard for me to understand how these lists of domains and pages can
be considered something under copyright. It might be the case -- we'd
probably have to ask a lawyer for advice on that if we wanted some
assurances.

I think we should publish these add-ons on the Directory. We could warn
that third-party data files may be under nonfree licenses. We shouldn't
say they *are* under nonfree licenses, because then we would be assuming
that they actually have the right to claim copyright on those files (and
I think we should not assume copyright one way or another, but instead
just provide information we know for certain to be true).

What do others think?


-- 
Joshua Gay
Licensing & Compliance Manager  <http://www.fsf.org/licensing>
Free Software Foundation        <https://donate.fsf.org>
GPG key ID: 8DA625BB            What's a GPG key ID?
                                See our Email Self-Defense Guide:
                                <https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org>