On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:34:44 +0000, Rob Kendrick wrote:

>       1) For them to mandate a system of development that guarentees
>          that the source for any binaries they release is available
>          from the same location the binaries are (I'm looking at you,
>          Aminet.)

Aminet emailed all uploaders of NetSurf packages a while back
requesting that either the source was uploaded or a direct offer for
the source was made in the readme.  If this hasn't been done by
Bernd/Artur I'm surprised the Aminet maintainers didn't take further
action.

>       2) For them to change the name of the browser to something
>          other than NetSurf, and for them to state clearly in their
>          documentation and help that it is completely unsupported by
>          and unrelated to the NetSurf Project.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "unrelated to".  Perhaps "based on code
by" but containing "unsupported modifications".  After all, it is 99%
NetSurf and some credit to the NetSurf browser project is due. 

Changing the name is a tricky one.  I personally don't like the way
Firefox has several different names depending on where you get it (the
Debian distributed one is Iceweasel for example).  As far as the user
is concerned they all look like Firefox, so it just generates
confusion and reduces brand awareness.

However, if the issue is retaining control/copyright of the NetSurf
name, then perhaps if it contains code that isn't in NetSurf SVN, and
is a build that isn't primarily distributed by netsurf-browser.org,
then the name should need to be changed.

The question is perhaps "When does NetSurf stop being NetSurf?"

Chris

PS I'd just like to make it clear that I have no involvement in the
OS3 port of NetSurf, beyond answering the odd question.  I have
offered advice on back-porting the OS4 version and a ttengine.library
version of font.c.  I maintain that with that file (which will need to
be updated now) and some other minor modifications, it should be
possible to get the OS4 version working on OS3.9 within a reasonable
timeframe.  I think effort would be better spent on this than trying
to add features to the Framebuffer version which it was never designed
for.

Reply via email to