Creak wrote: > 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? > I wasn't part of that decision, so I'm only repeating what I heard, which is that Debian simply preferred not to be obliged to discuss their changes with Mozilla. I don't think there was any specific change which Debian wanted and Mozilla felt was problematic, it was more that the idea of having to maintain an ongoing relationship was not attractive to the specific developers involved at Debian. And that's a perfectly reasonable position, too.
> 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? > Yes, pretty much. But so far we've always managed to agree. We always have the right and the ability to switch to the abrowser package which we've created, but we prefer to engage as long as possible, we benefit from the Firefox brand and I hope Mozilla benefits from the exposure we bring. Mark -- 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
