On 10/2/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/29/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My fear is that any bugfix going into gobolinux will block on MozCorp > > > approval, which is simply unethical when we can do better. > > > > I'm not sure that is a practical concern. Who's creating these Gobo > > specific bugfixes. > > They don't need to be Gobo-specific. Even if RedHat has permission to > use a particular bugfix and still call the result Firefox, the trademark > permission isn't necessarily transferable to Gobo. > > However, a central 'approved patches' repository has been mentioned, > which may reduce this problem. >
Is this a real issue, ie is mozilla.org slow with bug fixes? And are these bug fixes available elsewhere? > > Firefox has a strong brand which MIGHT worth using > > against a hypothetical situation. > > I don't understand this: is a verb missing? > Sorry. I think a line got deleted. Firefox has a strong brand. It might not be worth losing it to gain the advantage of private bugfixes. > User agent string is already a bunfight, another browser could use the > same .mozilla prefs dir, just as multiple Mozilla-produced browsers can, > and I see no reasons why extensions would become less compatible unless > Mozilla close the source somehow. > bunfight? With any fork these is bound to be divergence over time. > > Basic compatiblity issues with any fork as time goes on. > > Er, compatibility was already mentioned. > Thinking more rendering/CSS than specifically extensions but it all fits under "compatibility" umbrella. -- Carlo J. Calica _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
