On Tue 2008-06-10 22:52, Dan McGee wrote:

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Alessio Bolognino

...

[...]

Sure we name our package firefox- after the binary named firefox contained within. When they fix their build process to name the unbranded binary differently, perhaps we can adjust our package name accordingly.

OK, it sounds reasonable for me :) -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to themolok@gmail.com Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB

On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 01:57 -0400, Yonathan Dossow wrote:

IMHO, to avoid trademark violations we should use IceWeasel.

Would it make sense to distribute an iceweasel package with a binary inside it called "firefox"? Mozilla Corporation should fix their binary names, installation prefix, etc to get us to drop the firefox package name.

On 02:37 Wed 11 Jun , Yonathan Dossow wrote:

On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 08:12 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:

...

On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 01:57 -0400, Yonathan Dossow wrote:

...

IMHO, to avoid trademark violations we should use IceWeasel.

Would it make sense to distribute an iceweasel package with a binary inside it called "firefox"?

i'm not sure(i dont use debian) but i think that the debian's iceweasel package contains a binary called iceweasel.

In Debian Etch, /usr/bin/iceweasel and /usr/bin/firefox are links to /usr/lib/iceweasel/iceweasel.sh a script that calls the binary firefox-bin. Devious or what? John -- I wish I was young enough to know everything.

As a user, I really dislike the name Iceweasel... I really dislike its logo and so on... Please don't change it unless you have to.. Alper KANAT http://raptiye.org Alessio Bolognino yazmış:

On Wed 2008-06-11 05:46, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino wrote:

...

There is a thing that I have never understood: we ship the Firefox package not branded, for the well known issues with the licensing of the artwork, and that's fine; but are we sure we can name that package "firefox" ? If you ask it to me, I think we can not:

Mike Connor (a Mozilla guy :) said here [1]: "Firefox (the name) is equally protected and controlled by the same trademark policy and legal requirements as the Firefox logo. You're free to use any other name for the browser bits, but calling the browser Firefox requires the same approvals as are required for using the logo and other artwork. [...] If you are going to use the Firefox name, you must also use the rest of the branding."

Mozilla may say that we are "lying" to users, because the name is named firefox, but it doesn't contain Firefox.

Discuss!

And I just found this old bug report: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5795

I don't know why I missed it the first time I searched for it.

On Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:3341PM +0200, Xavier wrote:

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Alper KANAT wrote:

...

As a user, I really dislike the name Iceweasel... I really dislike its logo and so on...

Good for you! Then what?

Then find a different name. Iceweasel isn't our only alternative.

On Wed 2008-06-11 18:05, Lukáš Jirkovský wrote:

I've a small dumb question. Why not use official branded version when there are many licensing problems? According to KISS and Arch philosophy (use upstream apps and not to patch unless necessary) this should be a good way.

But what happens if we *have* to apply a patch for some reason (as we have to do, right now)? Should we change the package name? And if then we don't need that patch anymore because it's merged upstream, should we have to change back to the trademarked name? That sounds messy. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to themolok@gmail.com Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB

On Wed 2008-06-11 11:28, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alessio Bolognino wrote:

...

On Wed 2008-06-11 18:05, Lukáš Jirkovský wrote:

...

I've a small dumb question. Why not use official branded version when there are many licensing problems? According to KISS and Arch philosophy (use upstream apps and not to patch unless necessary) this should be a good way.

But what happens if we *have* to apply a patch for some reason (as we have to do, right now)? Should we change the package name? And if then we don't need that patch anymore because it's merged upstream, should we have to change back to the trademarked name? That sounds messy.

If you want the official build, you are welcome to download it direct from mozilla and install it. That, however, is not the one we distribute - you have a choice, you don't have to use what we provide

I was just trying to say that if we use the official branded version, then we can not apply a patch whenever we want, and that's bad; indeed I support the decision to distribute the not branded build. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to themolok@gmail.com Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB

Excerpts from Jan de Groot's message of Thu Jun 12 08:20:51 +0200 2008:

possible system libraries. Firefox 3.0 will even depend on xulrunner on our distribution in the near future (yes, this looks stupid, but it shrinks package size for firefox, reduces build time for firefox and saves on diskspace occupied by duplicate libraries for users who have both installed).

It seems pretty fair to me. The whole idea of using xulrunner for Firefox and Thunderbird was to separate the engine from the products, because the engine will be shared between the two of them and many other applications. Firefox/Thunderbird would only provide XUL and Javascript interface definitions/specific code and a few modules written in C(++), AFAIK. -- Geoffroy Carrier http://gcarrier.koon.fr/

Sam Gwydir a écrit :

On Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:3341PM +0200, Xavier wrote:

...

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Alper KANAT wrote:

...

As a user, I really dislike the name Iceweasel... I really dislike its logo and so on...

Good for you! Then what?

Then find a different name. Iceweasel isn't our only alternative.

Try this script (and replace Polarfuchs, which I like, with whatever you like). #!/bin/bash # change the "Bon Echo" branding of firefox to something more sexy cd /usr/lib/firefox/chrome unzip -q en-US.jar locale/branding/brand.* sed -i "s/Bon Echo/Polarfuchs/" locale/branding/brand.* zip -q -0 -u en-US.jar locale/branding/brand.* rm -rf locale/ echo "done"