undefined | Better HN

0 pointsErikBjare1y ago0 comments

Publishing a Mozilla-signed XPI outside of AMO is a breach of ToS, and can lead to being removed from the AMO.

0 comments

Source? I’m not aware of that restriction.

Self-hosting xpi files is definitely allowed, and all xpi files are signed by Mozilla. https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/self-dis...

ErikBjareOP1y ago

They threatened me here: https://github.com/orgs/ActivityWatch/discussions/818#discus...

See https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/signing-...

My previous statement was overly broad, but the restrictions do apply to rejected xpis.

phoe-krk1y ago

So posting the contents of my ~/.mozilla/firefox/default/extensions/ on GitHub is going to remove all of them from the store? Goodness, I wonder why no one thought of that until now.

ErikBjareOP1y ago

Yeah sorry I used imprecise language see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40766705

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

cbsks1y ago

Source? I’m not aware of that restriction.

Self-hosting xpi files is definitely allowed, and all xpi files are signed by Mozilla. https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/self-dis...

ErikBjareOP1y ago

They threatened me here: https://github.com/orgs/ActivityWatch/discussions/818#discus...

See https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/signing-...

My previous statement was overly broad, but the restrictions do apply to rejected xpis.

phoe-krk1y ago

So posting the contents of my ~/.mozilla/firefox/default/extensions/ on GitHub is going to remove all of them from the store? Goodness, I wonder why no one thought of that until now.

ErikBjareOP1y ago

Yeah sorry I used imprecise language see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40766705

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse