Pale Moon

SYSTEM · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:38 am

The 3.x versions of Pale Moon have been just optimized Firefox builds, but the 4.x series is becoming a fork of Firefox.

See http://www.palemoon.org/pm4-dev.shtml.

webfork · **Posted:** Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:00 pm

SYSTEM wrote:

The author has published the modifications

I didn't see this when you first posted -- thanks.

On a related note, they have introduced redistribution restrictions, even though its probably incompatible with both the MPL and GPL: http://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml

m^(2) · **Posted:** Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:08 pm

It's incompatible with GPL for sure, but it doesn't have to be. I don't know MPL too well, but it seems to me there are no problems with it.

SYSTEM · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:59 am

m^(2) wrote:

It's incompatible with GPL for sure

In addition...

GNU General Public License wrote:

All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term.

Some of the restrictions can be simply ignored.

m^(2) · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:25 am

SYSTEM wrote:

m^(2) wrote:

It's incompatible with GPL for sure

In addition...

GNU General Public License wrote:

All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term.

Some of the restrictions can be simply ignored.

No. Mozilla gave it to the Pale Moon team under GPL / LGPL / MPL of their choice.
Clearly, they chose MPL and provided the stuff to you under a restrictive license (which MPL allows (in general case, still not 100% sure it's OK here)). You're obligated to use the license given by Pale Moon or take software from sb. else. Which is not exactly the same software.

BTW I'm using Pale Moon for several months and I can't really recommend it because it breaks some sites. It's rare and not a deal big enough to switch back now because I'm migrating from this PC anyway, but if it was available on FreeBSD, I wouldn't use it anyway.

SYSTEM · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:40 am

m^(2) wrote:

No. Mozilla gave it to the Pale Moon team under GPL / LGPL / MPL of their choice.
Clearly, they chose MPL and provided the stuff to you under a restrictive license (which MPL allows (in general case, still not 100% sure it's OK here)). You're obligated to use the license given by Pale Moon or take software from sb. else. Which is not exactly the same software.

From the redistribution page (emphasis added):

Quote:

Even though Pale Moon is open source and supplied under the MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license, redistribution of the binaries is limited by certain conditions.

m^(2) wrote:

BTW I'm using Pale Moon for several months and I can't really recommend it because it breaks some sites. It's rare and not a deal big enough to switch back now because I'm migrating from this PC anyway, but if it was available on FreeBSD, I wouldn't use it anyway.

Interesting, I haven't noticed that. (But Pale Moon is only my secondary browser anyway.)

m^(2) · **Posted:** Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:28 am

SYSTEM wrote:

From the redistribution page (emphasis added):

Quote:

Even though Pale Moon is open source and supplied under the MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license, redistribution of the binaries is limited by certain conditions.

Oh, sorry, I missed that.
That's weird. And funny because it indeed invalidates their own restrictions.

Danix · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:10 pm

webfork wrote:

On a related note, they have introduced redistribution restrictions, even though its probably incompatible with both the MPL and GPL: http://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml

If I understand correctly, this restrictive license governs Pale Moon, but also Pale Moon Portable as a whole. It's funny because Pale Moon Portable uses the winPenPack Platform (Palemoon-Portable.exe and Palemoon-Portable.ini), that is governed by the winPenPack License Agreement (practically by the GPL: "Materials and software created by winPenPack Team, except where indicated, are released under GNU General Public License"). I think if Pale Moon's developers are free to release Pale Moon binaries under the MPL with these conditions, they should not place such strict limitations for the launcher that must be released under the GNU General Public License, without those restrictions.

SYSTEM · **Posted:** Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:15 pm

Pale Moon Portable 7.0 crashes on startup on some systems, including mine.

As a result, I decided to hold the entry for now.

Erkhyan · **Joined:** Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:56 pm **Posts:** 8

That thread says it was fixed pretty fast. Did you try that one too?

SYSTEM · **Posted:** Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:43 am

Erkhyan wrote:

That thread says it was fixed pretty fast. Did you try that one too?

No, because I wasn't aware of the fix.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try Pale Moon Portable 7.0a right now.

Edit: Yep, version 7.0a fixes the issue. Entry updated.

webfork · **Posted:** Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:05 am

[Moderator note:

This thread has spawned two others for web browsers:

... these were moved to a separate area to avoid a thread hijack.]

webfork · **Posted:** Sat Sep 01, 2012 9:12 am

Was looking at the Pale Moon wikipedia page to see if I could track down some kind of independent speed testing for it (or WaterFox) and was amused by the favorable editing of the Wikipedia page with the italics used in the sentence Pale Moon works with an optimized code base that takes full advantage of modern processor instruction sets.

Yes. Full advantage.

Midas · **Posted:** Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:01 pm

Since this thread has spawned more browser topics than you could shake a hand at (my exaggeration, I know), it's only fair that the latest browser comparative by Raymond.cc be posted here:
http://www.raymond.cc/blog/battle-of-the-browsers-in-cpu-and-memory-usage/

guinness · **Joined:** Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am **Posts:** 3740

Midas wrote:

Since this thread has spawned more browser topics than you could shake a hand at (my exaggeration, I know), it's only fair that the latest browser comparative by Raymond.cc be posted here:
http://www.raymond.cc/blog/battle-of-the-browsers-in-cpu-and-memory-usage/

Certainly an interesting test, can't say I'm surprised at some of the results. :mrgreen:

Pale Moon

Who is online