On 9/26/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Travis Watkins</b> <<a href="mailto:alleykat@gmail.com">alleykat@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 9/26/06, Paul Marshall <<a href="mailto:soudak@gmail.com">soudak@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Sorry, I am new here, and I have been trying to catch up and read as many of<br>> these discussions as I can. So I apologize if I am missing something, but I
<br>> don't see a problem with all of this.<br>><br>> From my understanding it sounds like Firefox (the name and icon) can be left<br>> in Ubuntu as long as ubuntu folks aren't modifying it and then distributing
<br>> it under the firefox name/logo.<br>><br>> All Mozilla is asking is that if people have patches they would like applied<br>> then they should take them to the moz foundation and get them worked in that<br>
> way. If ubuntu wants to change the browser, and not go through the moz<br>> foundation, then call it something else and use a different logo.<br>><br>> Why doesn't ubuntu just leave the firefox browser (with name/logo) in the
<br>> distro and not modify it, and if an ubuntu developer has a patch for it, or<br>> what not, then go join in on the moz foundation and get it worked in that<br>> way -- seems to me that that's the way things should be.
<br>><br>> Then the sweet patch impacts everyone using firefox, not just ubuntu folks.<br>><br>> Cheers,<br>> Paul<br>><br><br>1) We patch it so it doesn't do autoupdate.<br>2) We do security patches, not updating to the latest versions.
<br>3) We patch it to use the human theme.<br>4) I believe we turn on more GNOME integration stuff then upstream.<br><br>--<br>Travis Watkins<br><a href="http://www.realistanew.com">http://www.realistanew.com</a><br></blockquote>
</div><br>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.<br><br>My initial email still stands for #2 -- why wouldn't someone (including ubuntu developers) with a security patch work directly with the moz foundation?
<br><br>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.
<br><br>Thanks,<br>Paul<br>