Will Firefox no longer be named Firefox?

[Paul Marshall]

On 9/26/06, Travis Watkins <alleykat at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/26/06, Paul Marshall <soudak at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, I am new here, and I have been trying to catch up and read as
> many of
> > these discussions as I can.  So I apologize if I am missing something,
> but I
> > don't see a problem with all of this.
> >
> > From my understanding it sounds like Firefox (the name and icon) can be
> left
> > in Ubuntu as long as ubuntu folks aren't modifying it and then
> distributing
> > it under the firefox name/logo.
> >
> > All Mozilla is asking is that if people have patches they would like
> applied
> > then they should take them to the moz foundation and get them worked in
> that
> > way.  If ubuntu wants to change the browser, and not go through the moz
> > foundation, then call it something else and use a different logo.
> >
> > Why doesn't ubuntu just leave the firefox browser (with name/logo) in
> the
> > distro and not modify it, and if an ubuntu developer has a patch for it,
> or
> > what not, then go join in on the moz foundation and get it worked in
> that
> > way -- seems to me that that's the way things should be.
> >
> > Then the sweet patch impacts everyone using firefox, not just ubuntu
> folks.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Paul
> >
>
> 1) We patch it so it doesn't do autoupdate.
> 2) We do security patches, not updating to the latest versions.
> 3) We patch it to use the human theme.
> 4) I believe we turn on more GNOME integration stuff then upstream.
>
> --
> Travis Watkins
> http://www.realistanew.com
>

Ah, that makes more sense.  Again, I have to apologize for my newness, but
could someone point me to some conversations, or inform me, as to why
firefox is patched to turn autoupdate off.

My initial email still stands for #2 -- why wouldn't someone (including
ubuntu developers) with a security patch work directly with the moz
foundation?

The last two make sense for the problem at hand.  But then I would side with
some earlier suggestions, if firefox is tweaked ("patched") for ubuntu (and
in a manner that the moz foundation doesn't approve) then it should be
called *some-other-name*, but wouldn't it be possible to include firefox
(defaults and all) as well?  Then the user would just have more options for
browsers...I suppose a downside of this is that you're essentially taking up
2x the space for the same thing, the same browser.

Thanks,
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20060926/22d6e876/attachment-0001.htm