* Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo (jsogo@debian.org) wrote: > El mar, 14-06-2005 a las 15:12 -0400, Eric Dorland escribió: > [...] > > > Let's say we call it mozilla-firefox (assuming we are allowed to in the > > > first place) and downstream (making some modifications) is not allowed > > > to call it mozilla-firefox. If we call it debian-firefox then downstream > > > is still not allowed (under the same conditions) to call it > > > mozilla-firefox. The difference is not that huge to me. (but naming the > > > package just firefox seems to me like a good idea in the first > > > place) > > > > The difference is we have perhaps compromised our principles to keep > > calling it Firefox. > > > > BTW, don't be fooled into thinking we'll be able to call it > > debian-firefox. If we have to rename it will not be able to include > > the string "firefox" anywhere in that name. > > Then rename it to firebitch and make a campaing on WSJ to let people > know about the new software? How is then people going to get the > software? I cannot install anything that I don't know how to it is > named. I even cannot search for it... or are we going to call it "the > browser before known as firefox"? I never claimed the renaming would not be confusing and painful. Sometimes we have to do painful things because they're the right thing to do. I think everyone realizes a rename would suck the big one. That's why I'm approaching it cautiously and looking for alternatives. But complaining how much a rename would stink is not constructive. -- Eric Dorland <eric.dorland@mail.mcgill.ca> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature