Is Ubuntu going to adapt Ice Weasel?

[Micah Cowan]

On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 11:55 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 16:49 -0400, Dmitriy Kropivnitskiy wrote:
> 
> > Just to make my position (and I think position of many other people)
> > regarding firefox vs. epiphany.
> > 
> We're not talking about "Firefox vs. Epiphany".
> 
> We're talking about "If the Mozilla Corporation tell us that we may not
> distribute Firefox, what should we distribute instead?"
> 
> One of the options is GNU IceWeasel, another is Ephiphany.
> 
> Any "instead of firefox" is irrelevant at this point in the discussion,
> if this happens it's because we *cannot* *distribute* *Firefox*.

I don't think you're saying what you mean.

Nobody until now has said anything about Mozilla coming to us and saying
we can't distribute Firefox. What we've been talking about is Mozilla
telling us we can't distribute a /version/ of Firefox that has had the
official logo modified or replaced, or whose code has been modified in
unapproved ways (either of which would violate the Firefox/Firefox-logo
trademark license).

To say that "if this happens it's because we cannot distribute
Firefox" [exaggerated emphasis removed], is untrue: it is very likely to
happen at the point where we decide that Firefox may not be distributed
in *main*. Mozilla will never tell us not to distribute approved copies,
with logo, name and code intact. AFAIK they /can't/ tell us not to,
provided we abide by their trademark license and (free) software
license(s).

-- 
Micah J. Cowan
Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer...
http://micah.cowan.name/