2008/9/24 Mark Shuttleworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > No, if we want to use the Firefox brand, then we must work with Mozilla, > and that's reasonable. If we don't want to use the brand, they have > kindly given us lots of rights to the code they have so lovingly produced. >
I do more and more agree with you Mark. A company has the right to preserve its image (aka brand, logo, ...). I just wonder why Debian created Iceweasel then? I know Debian are real zealots about the free software, but I also trust them on this subject. So I'm a bit confuse here... Maybe I'm wrong, but I understood that they did few Debian-specific modifications. But as long as they modified Firefox, they can't reuse the name. If I'm right until then, why don't they send their modifications to Mozilla? Mozilla refused? Imagine you have an Ubuntu-specific feature to add to Firefox. Mozilla doesn't want it for some reason... What's your choice? Abandon your modification or change the name? I'm not trying to make a point here, I'm just trying to understand a bit better all the consequences :) -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
