On 2 Feb 2010 18:01:51 +0000 "Chris Young" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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. Perhaps so. > 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. The issue here is that I don't want the NetSurf "brand" to be associated with the Amiga OS 3 port at all in its current state and because of the efforts (or lack of) the people responsible have made in integrating into the project. > 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. We have no registered trademark like NetSurf, but I do not think it is fair to pass oneself off using it when there is a risk of the finger of blame being pointed in the wrong direction when things go wrong. I certainly wouldn't want people thinking that this OS 3 port of NetSurf is in any way representative of the RISC OS or GTK versions, for example. Because it isn't. > The question is perhaps "When does NetSurf stop being NetSurf?" When the source and appearance significantly diverges from what is available from http://www.netsurf-browser.org/ ? :) > 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. Understood. > 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. Absolutely. B.
