top 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 93 points 7 months ago* (13 children)

God, it's not hard to read an article instead of speculate in the comments.

"The new built in blocker will use Brave’s adblock library and run in Waterfox’s main browser process rather than as an extension. Kontos says this should make adblocking faster, more tightly integrated, and less dependent on extension APIs or constant upstream updates."

He also said Brave’s library was chosen partly because its MPL 2.0 license is a better fit for Waterfox, while deeper integration with a blocker like uBlock Origin would be more complicated because of its GPLv3 license.

Waterfox will still make one exception by default by allowing text ads on its default search partner page, currently Startpage, as a way to support the browser financially. The team clarified that this is Waterfox’s own revenue decision and not something inherited from Brave’s adblocking technology. Users who want stricter blocking will be able to disable all ads with a single setting, while people who already use third party blockers can keep using them as usual.

This, to me, is fine, because I change the default regardless. There's nothing stopping anyone else from doing the same. Sure, this could potentially open the door for additional "greedy" decisions down the road, but let's not jump to conclusions.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    The aversion to using a GPL library is a red flag for me. It basically says: "we don't want to grant our users the same rights we have".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    It's a bit more complicated than that because MPL is itself a weak copyleft license that requires that the MPL licensed source code is always made available to recipients of a binary or derived work. The difference from GPL is that it does not require that all additional parts of the derived work are also licensed under MPL, (ie. not viral copyleft) meaning that the MPL licensed work can be linked with proprietary code without requiring that the proprietary code make its source available, but unlike BSD or MIT licenses it does not allow the MPL licensed code to be made proprietary.

    The complication comes when linking MPL code with GPL code, even though MPL is GPL-compatible, since this requires that the entire derived work must now be made available under the GPL, while the original MPL licensed parts become dual-licensed under both MPL and GPL.

    If Waterfox developers allowed this then it would prohibit the use of the whole derived work in proprietary projects (as they would now need to be GPL), so it would be removing rights that they have already given to downstream users of their code. Proprietary projects would therefore have to remove the GPL licensed additions (in this case it would be the UblockOrigin code) and link just the MPL licensed parts, which would mean using only part of the whole browser.

    Personally I agree with you: I prefer GPL licensed projects. But MPL is not a bad license and I can understand and respect that some developers would make that choice (especially since the project is already licensed under MPL as it's a fork of Firefox).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    AFAIK MPL is viral, but only at the file level. In other words, if you modify an MPL-licensed file, your modifications need to be MPL-licensed, but if you add additional files, those can be a different license.

    (In practice, I suppose that that's fairly weak?)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    I think you misunderstood what "viral" mean in that context.

    If a file, under GPL, is added to a project, the whole project becomes dual licensed under the original licence plus GPL, which propagate to the whole project, like a virus. I know comparing it to something like a virus sound derogative, but this is the best way to describe its effect.

    If a file, under MPL, is added to a project, the project do not become MPL, only the added part is. Said project cannot change the MPL licensed part to another licence, but still can build anything it wish using it.

    Globally, a GPL licensed project protects the user more, but also prevent the devs from doing a lot of thing, which MPL does not.

    In the end, this is the devs freedom to chose which licence they wish to publish their code under, not ours.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    That sounds like exactly what I meant; where the GPL is viral on the project level, MPL is viral on the file level. So if code, under MPL, is added to a file, that whole code becomes MPL.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Since it’s Firefox based, do they even have the option to release their software with GPL components?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago*

    I don't believe they do. I'm pretty sure since its a soft fork and still has firefox as an upstream, that they would need the permission of any contributor that had agreed to the MPL license, and that would include the Mozilla project, and it's very unlikely that Mozilla would agree to that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    I don't see how not, but I'm not a lawyer. From my perspective only Waterfox's edits would actually be GPL anyway, since they don't own copyright to Mozilla. If they wanted to integrate their work upstream that would be an issue

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    I don't trust Brave and don't want any of it in my browser, regardless. I'd rather just switch to another fork like Librefox.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago

    I miss when people made web browsers without appeasing advertisers. Remember when mozilla introduced the popup blocker and netscape actually incorporated that into their mainstream product? You never see stuff like that anymore because advertisers control everything on the internet now.

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 7 months ago

    I'm glad I stuck with Librewolf.

    🚀 1
  • source
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    I don't quite understand the concerns in the comments here. The original blog post seems reasonable: https://www.waterfox.com/blog/15-years-of-forking/#what-waterfox-is-in-2026

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    What does this mean? Waterfox turning into Brave-like browser, which is Chromium, but for Mozilla forks?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    I'm not sure if I like this. I hope it can be configured in about:settings.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Personally I don't want any ad-tech related code in my browser, unless it's for blocking ads and tracking scripts.

    Allowing ads on startpage probably doesn't really entail that though. It's probably just a simple rule adding an exception to the blocking rules.

    It's not a good precedent though. If I was a Waterfox user, I'd be uneasy about this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    FFS I switched last week

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 7 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    I am concerned but is there enough information here to know it’s bad?

    Braves Adblock is generally very good as i recall. Traditional adblockers block content that is already downloaded while brave blocks it from using bandwidth at all. (Please correct if wrong)

    Its the other toxic and malicious crap it does and the far right sympathies that are its real problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago

    Braves Adblock is generally very good as i recall. Traditional adblockers block content that is already downloaded while brave blocks it from using bandwidth at all. (Please correct if wrong)

    This is wrong, almost all reputable ad blockers block specific known problematic domains or endpoints from being reached altogether, nothing is downloaded. You can check this in the most common blocking rules out there, such as EasyList.

    This was also the drama about chrome deprecating manifest v1, which allowed for more of these rules dynamically, and in which Google forced extensions for the Chrome browser only to follow a more limited approach in manifest v2, but still network blocking.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    Haha, Im here for people flipping out comments :)

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago
    [–] 1 point 7 months ago
    [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    So long waterfox! Get fucked!

  • source
  • 16 comments in c/buyeuropean@feddit.uk view that post
    [–] 32 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    damn this is unfortunate. i liked waterfox too.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Goddamn Google craming ads everywhere, switched from Firefox to Waterfox after 20 years... guess it's time to take the ol' fox out back and put it out of it's misery and switch to Librewolf.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 38 points 7 months ago* (5 children)

    Fuck Brave

    1. Brave uses scammy cryptocurrency / ad schemes to monetize you, the user.

    2. Personalized ads fingerprint and identify you, the user.

    3. The founder/CEO Brandon Eich supports the American regime, and is anti-lgbtq. Plus the guy created JavaScript, so fuck him.


    Quality open source software without borders will always be better than nationalist software.

    Boycott American companies, but don't fall into the same trap with European ones.


    Try librewolf

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    I'm still looking for a good solution for android.

    Ironfox is my favorite so far but it doesn't always render websites correctly.

    Tor is another option.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    i fixed the rendering with ironfox by loosening up the protections, its crazy fast and good now

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Cool, what did you have to change?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    in a nutshell, when i first installed it, I chose the recommended settings, it was 'strict'. And I would have issues opening some websites and horrible delays too. after a couple weeks I went back to privacy and security settings and customised it, that was it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    The comments here really put into perspective how many people don't actually read the articles linked.

    They're using the open source ad block library from brave, largely because of licensing, but keeping text search ads for the default search engine (Start page) enabled because that is part of how Waterfox makes money.

    It's just an integrated adblocker.. It's not enabled for anyone using an ad blocker already and for new users.. you can shut it off and still use uBlock Origin instead.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    I've been using Ironfox on my phone for a few months and it's was a pretty easy transition from Firefox.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago

    Wow what a shocker given who owns Waterfox and them saying they wouldn't interfere, just trust them!

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    Bye bye Waterfox!

  • source