[ Off-Topic, sorry ]
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:43:51AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
If it's not renamed, we can't legally ship it. What, IYO, should be
done to ship the existing program currently known as Firefox?
FoxFire or FoxInFire, maybe ;)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
El lunes, 16 de octubre de 2006 a las 00:22:53 +0200, Lech Karol Paw?aszek
escribía:
The fact that GNU chose the name Iceweasel for their own fork of Firefox
is extremely unfortunate :-(
Why it is unfortunate? Mozilla Corporation doesn't want (Debian) to use
firefox name without the
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is unfortunate because of the user confusion that it will
cause. IMO, the firefox package should not be renamed to
iceweasel.
If it's not renamed, we can't legally ship it.
... we can't ship it as free
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
El lunes, 16 de octubre de 2006 a las 00:22:53 +0200, Lech Karol Paw?aszek
escribía:
The fact that GNU chose the name Iceweasel for their own fork of
Firefox
is extremely unfortunate :-(
Why it is unfortunate? Mozilla Corporation doesn't
El lunes, 16 de octubre de 2006 a las 09:27:32 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio escribía:
Plus, one could say that as someone in Debian came up with the name, then we
have priority over it.
Hey, we can register it as a trade mark!
Before anyone gets the bright idea of getting all worked up about this
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:27:32AM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
El lunes, 16 de octubre de 2006 a las 00:22:53 +0200, Lech Karol Paw?aszek
escribía:
The fact that GNU chose the name Iceweasel for their own fork of
Firefox
is extremely unfortunate :-(
Why it is
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:43:51 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is unfortunate because of the user confusion that it will
cause. IMO, the firefox package should not be renamed to iceweasel.
If it's not renamed, we can't legally ship it. What, IYO, should be
Lech Karol Paw³aszek wrote:
On Monday 16 October 2006 00:07, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
[cut]
The fact that GNU chose the name Iceweasel for their own fork
of Firefox
is extremely unfortunate :-(
Why it is unfortunate?
Because they'll want Debian to call it 'Gnu-Iceweasel' and they'll
Ottavio Caruso wrote:
PS: Can't we just rename it '93r8d9yad4l260ud.lite'? It's easier to remember!
I prefer d6a5c9544eca9b5ce2266d1c34a93222, or possibly
acb943ac7d07d80a71fa271962df81e944bae3b7.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Le lundi 16 octobre 2006 15:26, Joey Hess a écrit :
Ottavio Caruso wrote:
PS: Can't we just rename it '93r8d9yad4l260ud.lite'? It's easier to
remember!
I prefer d6a5c9544eca9b5ce2266d1c34a93222, or possibly
acb943ac7d07d80a71fa271962df81e944bae3b7.
Git hater ? :-)
--
Jérôme Marant
Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:43:51 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
I think there will be a serious attempt at collaborating with the
Gnuzilla folks to try to resolve this confusion. Meanwhile, we're
trying to get the existing Firefox into Debian as free software.
Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Lech Karol Paw³aszek wrote:
On Monday 16 October 2006 00:07, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
[cut]
The fact that GNU chose the name Iceweasel for their own fork
of Firefox
is extremely unfortunate :-(
Why it is unfortunate?
Because they'll want Debian to call it
Hi,
I've read on several blogs that IceWeasel will be based on a fork of
FireFox and not just on vanilla FireFox. Is this true and if yes, why?
I hope this will not result in a flamewar, I'm just interested in the
reasons if an why we prefer the fork over the original source as base
for our
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:06:21PM +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote:
Hi,
I've read on several blogs that IceWeasel will be based on a fork of
FireFox and not just on vanilla FireFox. Is this true and if yes, why?
I hope this will not result in a flamewar, I'm just interested in the
reasons if
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:06:21PM +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote:
Hi,
I've read on several blogs that IceWeasel will be based on a fork of
FireFox and not just on vanilla FireFox. Is this true and if yes, why?
I hope this will not result in a flamewar, I'm just
El domingo, 15 de octubre de 2006 a las 22:06:21 +0200, Bastian Venthur
escribía:
I've read on several blogs that IceWeasel will be based on a fork of
FireFox and not just on vanilla FireFox. Is this true and if yes, why?
AIUI, it will be vanilla Firefox minus logo, minus Firefox name, plus
On Monday 16 October 2006 00:07, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
El domingo, 15 de octubre de 2006 a las 22:06:21 +0200, Bastian Venthur
escribía:
I've read on several blogs that IceWeasel will be based on a fork of
FireFox and not just on vanilla FireFox. Is this true and if yes, why?
AIUI, it will
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:22:53 +0200, Lech Karol Pawłaszek wrote:
On Monday 16 October 2006 00:07, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
El domingo, 15 de octubre de 2006 a las 22:06:21 +0200, Bastian Venthur
escribía:
I've read on several blogs that IceWeasel will be based on a fork of
FireFox and not just
Hi,
It will be a fork in the following senses:
* no inclusion of trademarked Mozilla artowrk
* backporting of security fixes to declared stable version
Wouldn't it be easier to just do the usual .dfsg-dance with the original
upstream tarball? I still fail to see why we need a fork
Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is unfortunate because of the user confusion that it will
cause. IMO, the firefox package should not be renamed to iceweasel.
If it's not renamed, we can't legally ship it. What, IYO, should be
done to ship the existing program currently known as
20 matches
Mail list logo
