[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!



Jan Willem Stumpel wrote:
> The choice of words by the OP was unfortunate, to say the least.
> But among all his blathering there was the germ of a valid point.
>   

The only potential valid point I saw coming out of it was that maybe
"transitional" wasn't the way to go.  I don't know what other options
there are, can we have a replacement package without using transitional
packages?

> Debian IMHO should carefully weigh the advantages and
> disadvantages of adhering --uncompromisingly-- to the letter of
> its doctrine.
>   

I think this problem is about the spirit of the doctrine:  using
Mozilla-trademarked packages breaks the freedom that people expect from
Debian.  Yes, the Debian logo itself is a problem in this regard. 
Personally, this is making me want to go back to Epiphany, but then I'd
miss out on all those extensions.

> The renaming of the programs certainly did have disadvantages to
> users. In the first place (in my experience) it introduced various
> problems with customised menus and window managers.
>   

Yeah, I think customized menus has always given me a problem on GNOME. 
Not so much if I just put my launches on a panel.

> Then there are the new names and logos themselves. What is an
> "Iceape"? How should this beast be pronounced? Webster's does not
> say, nor does the Concise Oxford, because it does not occur there.
> The logos are hideous (especially the Iceape one); they seem
> designed to frighten users away. My eternal project of converting
> "Aunt Tilly" types to Debian has just been set back again. The new
> names by themselves also isolate Debian from the rest of the Linux
> world (including the Debian clones like Ubuntu, Mepis). Is this a
> good thing? I doubt it very much.
>   

What exactly is a "Firefox"?  IceApe might be a little bit more
confusing to pronounce because of the consecutive vowels, but I'm sure
you won't find Firefox in the Oxford dictionary either ;)  I think a lot
of distros (except probably SuSE and RH) are going to go the way of
gnuzilla when there is more development on it.

> But the worst result of this unwillingness to "negotiate until the
> problem is solved" surely is in the human/psychological field. We
> may consider it a given that the relationship between the Mozilla
> people and the Debian people has received some serious blows. This
> will certainly have a negative influence on the smooth technology
> transfer between the two sides. The quality of the Debian versions
> of the Mozilla products can only suffer from this. Most likely it
> already has.
>   

I think Mozilla has been at least as unwilling to negotiate on the issue
of their trademarks as Debian has been on the issue of letting users
modify Debian without restrictions.  I think that what is happening with
gnuzilla is the most appropriate thing to happen.  All Debian wanted to
do was to make modifications to Firefox, which is open source.  But
Mozilla has said that those modifications need approval by them in order
to make it something called "Firefox"... so what would you advocate? 
Debian needs to just keep the Firefox package as produced by Mozilla and
can't modify it?  I can't blame either side really.

It was reiterated by Mozilla that if it doesn't do this, it will lose
some ability to protect its trademarks.  IANAL, but somehow it just
doesn't sound right to me.

Angelo



Reply to: