Mozilla recently removed every version of uBlock Origin Lite from their add-on store except for the oldest version.

Mozilla says a manual review flagged these issues:

Consent, specifically Nonexistent: For add-ons that collect or transmit user data, the user must be informed…

Your add-on contains minified, concatenated or otherwise machine-generated code. You need to provide the original sources…

uBlock Origin’s developer gorhill refutes this with linked evidence.

Contrary to what these emails suggest, the source code files highlighted in the email:

  • Have nothing to do with data collection, there is no such thing anywhere in uBOL
  • There is no minified code in uBOL, and certainly none in the supposed faulty files

Even for people who did not prefer this add-on, the removal could have a chilling effect on uBlock Origin itself.

Incidentally, all the files reported as having issues are exactly the same files being used in uBO for years, and have been used in uBOL as well for over a year with no modification. Given this, it’s worrisome what could happen to uBO in the future.

And gorhill notes uBO Lite had a purpose on Firefox, especially on mobile devices:

[T]here were people who preferred the Lite approach of uBOL, which was designed from the ground up to be an efficient suspendable extension, thus a good match for Firefox for Android.

New releases of uBO Lite do not have a Firefox extension; the last version of this coincides with gorhill’s message. The Firefox addon page for uBO Lite is also gone.

  • @B312
    3•4 hours ago

    Isn’t it maintained independently?

    • @[email protected]OP
      16•4 hours ago

      Every time Mozilla releases a new version of Firefox, LibreWolf applies patches on top of it and releases that. No Firefox, no LibreWolf.

      There are hard forks of Firefox that work semi-independently of that project. But they often struggle with feature parity and, worse, security.

      • @B312
        1•1 hour ago

        Oh damn, that sucks

      • PennomiEnglish
        -4•3 hours ago

        Source code doesn’t magically disappear when the company who made it goes off the rails. LibreWolf will be just fine.

        • @[email protected]English
          9•3 hours ago

          Who’s going to develop security and feature updates for it? The Librewolf devs certainly won’t have the man power.

        • @[email protected]OP
          6•3 hours ago

          In theory, no, but in practice… Every major Google Chromium fork has accepted the removal of Manifest V2 add-ons. It’s much easier to make a fork when 99% of your work is done for you. (That’s not to disparage any fork of any major browser, just a point that development doesn’t come cheap.)

        • zkfcfbzrEnglish
          4•3 hours ago

          That’s not really what the issue is when people mention LibreWolf depends on Firefox. Its code will always be there, sure - but an abandoned browser is a soon-to-be-dead browser. Something as complex as Firefox needs constant updates to its security and engine, at a minimum, to keep it safe and functional. That’s all work that Mozilla does for LibreWolf, and it’s a significant enough burden that arguably no current fork of Firefox would be able to bear it. It’s apparently a burden even Microsoft wasn’t willing to bear anymore.