You are here

Home » Forums » Development Forums » Beta Testing

Mozilla "FF/Minefield", Portable Edition 3.6a1pre [Nightly Build 11-Jun-2009]

23 posts / 0 new
Log in or register to post comments
Last post
June 12, 2009 - 5:17am
#1
r.brem
r.brem's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 2008-12-29 13:50
Mozilla "FF/Minefield", Portable Edition 3.6a1pre [Nightly Build 11-Jun-2009]

Application: Mozilla FF/Minefield
Category: Internet
Description: Mozilla Minefield, Portable Edition is the Developer version of Mozilla Firefox web browser bundled with a PortableApps.com Launcher as a portable app, so you can take your bookmarks, extensions and saved passwords with you.

Download Mozilla Minefield, Portable Edition, Portable Edition 3.6a1pre English [8.59MB download / 24.6MB installed]
(MD5: 7bc28b672492ae5a1ff64c93135fffce)
Download Mozilla Minefield, Portable Edition, Portable Edition 3.6a1pre German [8.62MB download / 28.4MB installed]
(MD5: 61f85de8b8caa81ca9a3d96cea97a283)

Release Notes:

Development Test 1 (2009-06-12): Initial release

  • Using the Nightly Build from 11-Jun-2009
  • Installer compiled with PortableApps.com Installer 0.91.2

[The topic has been modified by Mod Tim for safety and clarity: The title was: Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition 3.6a1pre [Nightly Build 11-Jun-2009]. After a consultation with some folks in the Mozilla #Firefox IRC I have decided to make it clear , This is NOT FIREFOX, this IS MINEFIELD. It is their opinion that a modified version of Minefield MAY be redistributed as it does not contain the Branding and Logos. I stand ready to be corrected. See my post below.]

Top
June 12, 2009 - 6:42am
NathanJ79
NathanJ79's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 2007-07-31 15:07
Intriguing

Intriguing.

We have the 3.5 beta 4 here, but you just up and portablized the very latest nightly. Daring indeed.

Can anyone say as to how reliable the launcher is vs. JTH's for the official PA.c releases, and how usable this particular nightly is? Also is there anything specifically special about this particular one, or is it more of a "just because" kind of thing?

Might have to try this later. Can't do rapidshare from this terminal.

Top
June 12, 2009 - 12:13pm
Bensawsome
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 2006-04-22 19:27
...

Doesn't he need permission from Mozilla in order to repackage it? I'm not trying to put you down. I'm sure it's great but I just wanna make sure it's in compliance or whatever.
EDIT: Ok I just installed it but realized it installed over my normal firefox... So just a tip make it install to H:\PortableApps\FirefoxB36Portable or something other then the default firefox directory.

 iLike Macs, iPwn, However you put it... Apple is better ^_^ 
"Claiming that your operating system is the best in the world because more people use it is like saying McDonalds makes the best food in the world..."

Top
June 12, 2009 - 1:51pm
wraithdu
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 11 months ago
Developer
Joined: 2007-06-27 20:22
There's no way he has

There's no way he has permission to repackage and distribute Firefox. A mod needs to remove the links and lock this thread.

Top
June 12, 2009 - 4:36pm
(Reply to #4)
gluxon
gluxon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Developer
Joined: 2008-06-21 19:26
Agreed. And this is basically

Agreed.

And this is basically just John's launcher with a different App directory.

Top
June 12, 2009 - 4:54pm
(Reply to #5)
NathanJ79
NathanJ79's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 2007-07-31 15:07
For what it's worth

FWIW, it ain't our boy, if y'all know who I mean. His latest beta release is something called 3.5 beta 99, and the download link is not the same. Still, you're probably right.

Speaking of whom, since a mod will probably be in here in short order, likely JTH I would think, it seems the user "malikor" is affiliated with the above and is a moderator on his forum, just so you know. I remember his name, he posted some rapidshare or megaupload links in another topic and someone said it was warez (though the topic creator said the app was freeware).

As another point of interest, "our boy" has a forum now, and he's not even using the gold PA logo for it, he's using the original grey logo. I'd link it, but JTH & co. probably wouldn't appreciate it; besides, the forum is linked from the site we don't name here, so those who can get there can get to the forum in relative short order. Ironically, they have a rule stating that you can't impersonate one of them. I am resisting the temptation to register and call them on that (being as that they are sort of impersonating this site).

Top
June 12, 2009 - 6:09pm
(Reply to #6)
qwertymodo
qwertymodo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 10 months ago
Joined: 2008-03-17 19:08
Speaking of that forum, have

Speaking of that forum, have you read their rules?

No linking of images to developer site is allowed. We do not wish to attract unnecessary attention from them.

Don't want to attract attention? Why not? I thought they claim up and down to be legit! *cough* Oh, and this one:

No live links are allowed. If you need to post with URL, always post with the Code Tag unless it is a link to internal thread.

Again, guess they're trying to stay under the radar. Wouldn't want their site showing up in referrer links when people request new apps, right? Oh, and I LOVED this one:

No advertising/posting about cheap warez CD/Cracks for sales are allowed. Warez is FREE.

Yes, of course it's free with the digital equivalent of a five-finger discount.

Is John going after these guys for trademark infringement? As Nathan said, they're using the logo outright, not even coloring it this time.

Quamquam omniam nescio, nec nihil scio.

Top
June 12, 2009 - 6:29pm
(Reply to #7)
NathanJ79
NathanJ79's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 2007-07-31 15:07
Yes I have

I have read their rules, and was quoting from them. But yes, the ones you quoted were interesting.

Anyway, I tried the Firefox in the original post. It's clean according to AVG - I wouldn't put anything past these people - and it seems to be OK. I don't want to build a profile in it, give it all my logins and whatnot, but it's neat to test out. I've left it up on my desktop as a test, kinda nice to look into the future of Firefox, and it's novel that it calls itself Minefield (yes, I know about unofficial Firefox builds not getting the trademark name). So it's interesting.

And FWIW what he means by free is not charging for it. As despicable as you may think warez is (and I don't disagree, but...) there are people who crack programs and then turn around and sell it. That's far worse because you're putting illegal software in the hands of people who want to pay for stuff. Remember the little girl from New York City a few years back? She had her mom pay for KaZaA Gold, because she wanted her favorite singers to get paid, whose music she was downloading. KaZaA was charging them, like $15-20 a month, with claims on their site that they were legit. Well, they weren't and this family got sued by the RIAA. So I have no sympathy when I hear about KaZaA in legal trouble (if I would have had any to start with). Robin Hood was a noble thief of legend and emulating him isn't entirely dishonorable, but selling what you got for free through illegal means is a whole other kind of wrong that has no honor.

Top
June 12, 2009 - 6:43pm
(Reply to #8)
qwertymodo
qwertymodo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 10 months ago
Joined: 2008-03-17 19:08
I think minefield is the

I think minefield is the codename for nightly builds put out by a certain group who does those builds... I seem to remember getting a beta of 3.0 off the official mozilla site back when it was still in beta and it was called minefield too. Anyway, yes I do agree that paying the hackers for stolen goods is worse, I was mostly just pointing out the irony of them using that to legitimize their operations. And I've had too many friends get too many viruses from kazaa to have any sympathy there either. It's one thing to illegally redistribute software, worse to charge someone to download it, but throwing in viruses too? I know kazaa wasn't responsible for the content, so "they" were not responsible for the viruses... it's just... like salt in the wound and a slap in the face. Just makes me appreciate legitimate sites like this one all the more.

Quamquam omniam nescio, nec nihil scio.

Top
June 12, 2009 - 11:36pm
(Reply to #9)
NathanJ79
NathanJ79's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 2007-07-31 15:07
Right

That's exactly what it is, the code name for the nightly builds of the 3.5 or 3.6 or whatever. The last time I used a version of Firefox that wasn't called Firefox, it was called Deer Park, like the water. Anyone who follows Firefox on the dev side can tell you how long ago that was (1.5, IIRC).

KaZaA really can't be blamed for viruses; the same problems plague BitTorrent and that has legal and legitimate uses. It's just people exploiting the laziness and greed of others (downloaders) for their own ends. The supposedly righteous copyright holders are no better; in the late 90s the RIAA was promoting the use of "Napster bombs" to attempt to damage audio equipment. I found one in an old demo of an Evanuisance (Evanescence) song. Opened in Audacity or whatever, it's got this thick spike, solid no matter how far in you zoom. Didn't damage my speakers but was clearly meant to. Cut it out and the song was fine. Also, I used to use a program called System Mechanic, but one day I entered the serial wrong when installing it, and it restarted my computer. I can't remember what I was doing, but I lost some unsaved work. After doing some research, I found that if certain conditions are present (text editor open, text saved on the clipboard, Explorer windows open, etc.) when you mistype the serial, it triggers some kind of piracy protection that punishes a would-be pirate (or imperfect typist) by rebooting their machine. Next version came out and they wanted more money to upgrade, I quit using it. And of course the Sony fiasco in '05. But I'd like to think stuff like that is the exception rather than the rule, because stories like that almost make one sympathetic to the so-called pirates.

But as you say, it helps me to appreciate legitimate sites like this, and freeware and open source as well.

Top
June 13, 2009 - 4:29am
(Reply to #10)
gmbudwrench
gmbudwrench's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 months 3 days ago
Joined: 2007-06-25 05:00
JTH did a minefield

version back last year, but it was a speed test, but still branded as minefield. Here: https://portableapps.com/node/15474

Top
June 13, 2009 - 6:37am
(Reply to #11)
r.brem
r.brem's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 2008-12-29 13:50
...

I ask myself what gives to discuss it here generally... I offer the most topical alpha which also functions, then it is slandered because of rapidshare. I am able to do my Apps uploading where I want, because these are no Warez, it can make no difference.

Sorry for my bad english, i'm a german people.

Roland Brem
Zwickau, Germany

Top
June 13, 2009 - 1:21pm
(Reply to #12)
wraithdu
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 11 months ago
Developer
Joined: 2007-06-27 20:22
You're missing the licensing

You're missing the licensing issue. No one is allowed to repackage or redistribute Firefox using the Firefox / Mozilla trademarks without Mozilla's authorization. PortableApps has that authorization, I'm guessing you don't.

If you want to recompile this build from source, and remove all Firefox / Mozilla trademarks, then you can redistribute it. But right now, you're breaking Mozilla's trademark rules.

Perhaps just distribute the launcher, and provide instructions how a user can download the nightly build and properly unpackage it into your distribution.

Top
June 13, 2009 - 4:28pm
(Reply to #13)
David Dixon II
David Dixon II's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Developer
Joined: 2007-06-11 22:54
Permission

He'll need permission to send this out. And the fact of sending out an application that i dont think the public really wants, kinda dumb. We have not released a nightly build on this site yet and don't think we plan to.

If he doesn't have permission to redistribute, it's illegal.

Na na na, come on!

Top
June 13, 2009 - 8:52pm
(Reply to #14)
r.brem
r.brem's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 2008-12-29 13:50
GNU / GPL

...If an originator or copyright owner (licenser) puts a work under this licence, he offers with it each extensive rights of use this work: The licence permits the duplication, spreading and change of the work, also for commercial purposes. As a countermove the licensee commits himself to the observance of the licence terms. Among the rest, these intend the duty to the naming of the author or the authors and oblige the licensee to put products derived under the same licence (Copyleft principle). Who does not keep to the licence terms, loses with it automatically the rights put away by the licence...

Here is the MPL License: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html

Because the MPL are incompatible to (L) GPL, in particular according to opinion of the Free software Foundation (FSF), Mozilla provides her programs likewise under the GNU Lesser general public License and the GPL

Roland Brem
Zwickau, Germany

Top
June 13, 2009 - 10:58pm
(Reply to #15)
Gizmokid2005
Gizmokid2005's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Developer
Joined: 2007-01-17 19:24
I wasn't going to say

I wasn't going to say anything, but it needs to be said, Firefox as an application is GPL, but the trademarks for Mozilla Firefox are not. You need permission (which John has) to reuse the trademarks in their application. If you do not get permission it is illegal to repackage their trademarks modified, even though the app is GPL'd.

Top
June 13, 2009 - 11:54pm
(Reply to #16)
NathanJ79
NathanJ79's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 2007-07-31 15:07
Minefield

Hey guys, I think the Firefox stuff is out of it. It's Minefield, not Firefox. Not sure if Minefield is protected or not. When it starts it goes to a Mozilla page, but I don't think it says Firefox on it.

I have it at home, didn't put it on my flash drive, else I'd double check. And of course I cannot access rapidshare from this terminal.

Top
June 14, 2009 - 9:31am
wsm23
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 3 months ago
Joined: 2006-01-09 22:05
@ Mods

Why is this still up and available?

This guy can violate all the MPL's he wants to on his own.

There is no reason for PortableApps.com to facilitate him. He has no permission to repackage any Mozilla Firefox build, only PA.com has that.

Life is about the journey not the destination!

The Kazoo Spartan

Top
June 14, 2009 - 9:45am
(Reply to #18)
jnw222
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 1 month ago
Joined: 2009-05-30 11:10
right. it is legal to

right. it is legal to distribute ORIGINAL copies under the firefox name with offical branding. I am sure this counts as MODIFIED. to keep this, recompile this without the --enable-offical-branding switch

thanks anyways

Top
June 14, 2009 - 10:45am
(Reply to #19)
gluxon
gluxon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Developer
Joined: 2008-06-21 19:26
I asked Tim to remove it on

I asked Tim to remove it on the IRC, he's saying that John has probably already seen this and decided to not remove it so he's emailing him about it now.

I completely agree with him though it's been a couple days, John must have seen this by now...

Top
June 14, 2009 - 3:08pm
Tim Clark
Tim Clark's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 1 month ago
Joined: 2006-06-18 13:55
After a consult with members

After a consult with members of the Mozilla #Firefox channel on the IRC, and our own channel, I have concluded that the Topic contains links to a repackaged version of MINEFIELD and not FIREFOX. I have edited the topic to make this more clear. No offense to the original poster, r.brem, is intended, to him I offer our apologies.

Minefield is the Developer version of FireFox.

They, the Mozilla folks, are of the opinion that this is allowable and I have followed their lead. I am ready to be corrected on this, but please provide real information showing why I am in error. At this point If this needs to be corrected I think it should come from John.

Until we hear otherwise the question of the legality of the links is now closed.

Much thanks to MaienM and Gizmokid2005 for their level headed assistance in this matter.

Moderator Tim

Things have got to get better, they can't get worse, or can they?

Top
June 14, 2009 - 7:03pm
reederda
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 2 months ago
Joined: 2009-02-12 19:59
What exactly is Mozilla

What exactly is Mozilla Minefield? Is it another browser, and if so, what's the difference from Firefox?

Top
June 14, 2009 - 7:08pm
(Reply to #22)
Tim Clark
Tim Clark's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 1 month ago
Joined: 2006-06-18 13:55
Mozilla Minefield is

Mozilla Minefield is what will become Firefox when it is released.
It is a development version, a beta, so to speak [actually alpha, which is even earlier than that]

The official FF is now at 3.0.11

This is 3.6a1pre
It will change, much perhaps, before going final.
It should only be used for testing purposes.
"and oh yes, there will be bugs", it's called "minefield" for a reason Wink
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/minefield/
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/minefield

Tim

Things have got to get better, they can't get worse, or can they?

Top
Log in or register to post comments