Re: firefox -> iceweasel package is probably not legal
On Tuesday 05 December 2006 18:08, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > I cannot produce a car identical to a Ford Focus and then say "well,
> > it's a Ford Focus because the feature set is identical."
>
> This is a totally useless analogy. In this example there is no
> functional meaning in the name of the vehicle, whereas there clearly
> is a functional meaning in the case of a Debian package.
>
> After the need for a transition package has passed, no longer having a
> transition package which causes iceweasel to be installed is
> appropriate.
>
> To place this analogy into a proper perspective, what really is the
> case is akin to having someone comming onto the car lot, saying that
> they want a Ford Focus, and pointing them at a Peugeot 307 because
> this isn't a Ford dealer.
You are right, that is a more fair analogy. But I think it is yet more
complicated. I'm going to a car lot, asking for a Ford Focus and being told,
sure, we've got that, but we call it a Peugeot 307 (which, incidentally I had
never heard of before... looks a lot like a Ford Focus). Is the consumer
confused? Am I going to think this product is a Focus with a different name?
But consider for a moment that fact that iceweasel (at least the one I have
installed) includes /usr/bin/firefox... which is a symlink to iceweasel.
The file isn't part of the transition package, it's part of the debian
product. The confusion then lies not just with the transition package, but
with the iceweasel package itself.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
c: 831.818.6940 e: skellogg@u.washington.edu
w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/
So, let go
...Jump in
...Oh well, what you waiting for?
...it's all right
...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Reply to: