Now, that aside, as mentioned in the first sentence I use AdBlockPlus and NoScript in Firefox. This is because the majority of sites I visit are overzealous with there ads. I am not talking about decent sites that are just trying to get by. I am talking about sites that spam your ass with pop-up windows, banner ads, flash ads etc. There are legitimate cases in which websites that you frequent and support do display ads that are tasteful, relevant to the content of the webpage, and safe (ie no malicious code, downloads, and tracking). These legitimate ads allow for legitimate websites to off-set the cost of maintaining the website. And thus allow them to provide you with the content and services that you love for free. Everyone can probably agree with this. Then there is the “Ad Nazi’s” that will spam your ass (yes, I like saying that) with every type of ad imaginable to man (and women), irregardless of there relevance, annoyance, and detriment to the user. These companies DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT MONEY (excluding the ones that want your money, and your personal information (in the end just to sell and make more money)). This was one of the many driving forces behind the free and open-source movement (and its inherent popularity (and opposition from those that do not gain from it, ie big conglomerates like Microsoft and Intel)). This is one of the reasons why I use Firefox with add-ons like AdblockPlus and NoScript.

I believe that my mentality and the mentality of the majority of the Internet web surfers (Geeks and Casual Users alike), is that this is “THE Internet”, NOT “YOUR Internet” (ie. Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, etc.) Utilizing tools like AdblockPlus and NoScript allow us to view what we want to view. Simply put making it “OUR Internet” (not as an individual, but as a community.) Now, sitting in front of my computer, I have two classifications for People/Webmasters/Companies/Groups/Organizations alike. There are Friends and then there are Douche bags. Friends are just that; friends. They are there to help, contribute to the overall wellbeing and environment of the Internet, as a whole (the Internet Community) and on an individual level (the Internet’s individual user (for example me, and all the great things that I have learned on the Internet that make me who I am.)) Then there are the Douche Bags {duh, duh, duh}. Who are here to make money by exploiting this awesome technology and the people that use it. There occasionally is a grey area in-between, which sometimes it is hard to decide if someone is a Friend or Douche Bag.

Now, I realize that this is a really long and convoluted rant but there is a very specific point to all the above and following sentences. So try to bear with me.

One of my most prominent convictions is: “Intent”. I will illustrate this point with the following scenario: while playing soccer someone swings there leg in an attempt to kick the soccer ball in the general direction of the opposing team’s net. Whilst doing so, the player “inadvertently” kicks me in the balls, causing me to fall to the ground, assume to fetal position, and whimper like a little girl. After which I get to my feet and __________________ (that’s a fill in the blank).
Choice 1: Beat the shit out of him.
Choice 2: Let it go and continue playing.
Choice 3: Give him a warning and tell him if it happens again I will beat the shit out of him.
Although Choice 1 would be the easiest (and most satisfying), as a civilized (in my opinion) human being, my reaction would be 100% based upon his “intent” (or, more accurately, my interpretation of it.) What was his intent? Possible Intent:
Intent 1: Belligerence: Intentionally kicked me in the balls with the intent to hurt me and cause me damage.
Intent 2: Innocence: Shit happens. He did not do it on purpose, is genuinely sorry for doing it, and will make sure it does not happen again.
Intent 3: Feigned Innocence: Did it with the intent to hurt me and cause me damage, however, when he realized there would be consequences (me beating him up) he apologized and said it was an accident. But was not really sorry and only did it to avoid the consequences of his actions.
I believe that illustrates my point of “intent” quite well.

Now, how does all this arbitrary, unstructured rambling fit together? Quite simply put “what is/was Giorgio’s original intent?”. Simple, yet profound. NoScript is a great tool that can be utilized by an advanced computer user, effectively greatly improving their web surfing experience and security with custom rules; all the way to your average person that can surf the web, but has no knowledge of what is going on behind the scene, yet using NoScript for free to cut down on ads, tracking, and malicious code, which improves there overall Internet experience. Now, what is NoScript doing there in the first place? Where did it come from? Who designed it? Why did they design it? What did they hope to gain from sharing their product with others? What is the “owner” of NoScript receiving in return to justify the time spent making the product, updating the product, and distributing the product?

All these questions are important, yet futile. This is because 1) I highly doubt Giorgio will send me a personal e-mail explaining all the answers to the above questions to me 2) Even if he did, why would I believe him? That being said, I trust Mozilla and the Mozilla Foundation more than any other entity on the Internet that I will never physically see and interact with in such a way that I can use my 23 years of experience on this Earth to make an informed decision about there motives, intent, and end goals. I trust them because I have been using there services (for free) for years and I whole heartily agree with most of there views, opinions, and actions. Which is why I trust them to certify add-on and extensions as safe. Not just safe as in “spyware free” but also in the sense of no hidden agenda; stable; and in general, no bullshit (by that I mean Microsoft type bullshit.)

I believe that as a person sometimes the most important thing you can do is fuck up. By fucking up a particular situation you will learn lessons that will otherwise have not been learned (that can be applied to any aspect of life), and you gain a new perspective that you would not have other seen. And you learn to appreciate things that you previously took for granted.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with releasing NoScript to the public through the Mozilla Add-on Site (providing it fits into their criteria and philosophies), and displaying banner ads on your site to pay for the cost of maintaining the site and developing the product. I don’t think anyone here will disagree with that. What question interests me is Giorgio’s intent. Was NoScript released to generate revenue for Giorgio above and beyond the maintaining of the website and the development of NoScript? By directing every download to a particular NoScript webpage that contains ad banners that generate Giorgio money. Then every update (every couple of days or so) redirecting them to said page to make even more money. If so, is there anything wrong with that? Is everyone free to use NoScript (provided they abide by the EULA) or does Giorgio only want you using NoScript if he gets paid for it, ie banner ads; going so far as to engage in nefarious actions to ensure he gets paid (via the banner ads) for you to use the “free” NoScript?

Now onto AdblockPlus. No matter how you look at it AdblockPlus’ job is to block ads. End of story, period.

So. Giorgio is happy to provide NoScript for “free” as long and he gets paid for it via the banner ads on the NoScript websites, that users are automatically re-directed to every update (every couple of days). However, if you wish to use the “free” product NoScript and use AdblockPlus, thereby effectively blocking Giorgio’s revenue stream, Giorgio will retaliate by exploiting a venerability in AdblockPlus to ensure he gets his money right?
************************************************************************************************************************************************
In the end this is what I think: Giorgio made a great product with good intentions. He made a mistake by all this AdblockPlus shenanigans. But so did Wladimir Palant. It would be difficult for NoScript to generate operational revenue from the banner ads and AdblockPlus to retain integrity and block all (try to) ads, while still respecting the rights and operational revenue of a fellow Mozilla add-on developer. I believe that this situation could have been handled much more maturely (that is not an insult to anyone.) However, I think that this is/was a very good learning experience for everyone (ie developers, Mozilla, users etc.)

In the end here is what I think: Free Is Good. We are entitled to the option (and ideals) of free and open-source software. However, it cost money to develop and maintain software. It is hard to balance these two facts, and still abide by the general Mozilla, open-source philosophies. And sometime you need to fuck shit up to make things better. Right now after all the bullshit I think individually NoScript and AdblockPlus are better products. And the free and open-source community has learned a lot from this “situation”.

Keep up the good work, and {Thumbs Up}.

Power brings corruption. Your addon’s fame is skyrocketing and this success got on the top of your head and made you think that we are stupid.

I have tried in the past reporting to you the excess of updates this addon has , and all I found was replies on the lines of "door this way —>" , but finally all makes sense.

Good luck and enjoy the money you will get when you sell noscript to norton or whatever other bigger fish out there when the time comes.