On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 23:20 -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote: > On Sunday 28 January 2007 22:52, Greg Folkert wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 21:38 -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote: > > > On Sunday 28 January 2007 18:33, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > > > Do you see a difference? > > > > > > > > You could have cancelled and looked into why that is. iceweasel > > > > provides firefox because it *is* firefox. There is no functional > > > > difference between firefox and iceweasel. You're making a > > > > mountain out of a molehill. > > > > > > Here's the part I don't get. Even though I'm making a living as a > > > programmer, I'm self taught and have missed a lot -- and I don't > > > know C or C++. I've tried to make sense of the listing of what was > > > taken out of Firefox to make Iceweasel, yet I found it hard to > > > follow. > > > > > > Just what was taken out as non-free if it doesn't effect > > > functionality? If it doesn't make a difference, why is it in there? > > > Or have all the non-free things been replaced by free code > > > already? > > > > The whole thing comes down to this. > ... > > They only way to fix this issue was to: > > 1. Get the Mozilla Foundation to compromise on its stance, > > allowing quid-pro-quo from before, They said it'll never happen, > > ever. They were "protecting" the Firefox Branding > > 2. Get Debian to compromise, making exceptions to its policy on > > DFSG. Thereby compromising the whole foundation that Debian > > is built upon. Possibly forcing hundreds of other compromises of the > > DFSG. > > 3. "Fork" the Firefox source, to be changed to the point where > > it was no longer defying the Mozilla Foundation's terms, but also > > complying with the Debian Free Software Guide(DFSG). > > > > I'll bet you can guess which one the maintainer(s) was(were) forced > > to choose. > > > > Any questions? > > Okay, I get that and thanks for the rundown, but at one point I saw a > list of differences between Firefox and Iceweasel, including a long > list of things that were removed from Iceweasel. A lot of it looked > technical, but it did seem to indicate there was a lot more than a logo > and name that were removed. When people refer to the non-free code, is > it ONLY to the logo and name? It just seemed like the list of changes > was a lot longer than that. The actual things removed: http://gnuzilla.gnu.org/fulltree/iceweasel-1.5.0.7-g2/remove.nonfree Most all of them are Graphics related, except for the auto-updater for Firefox...err Iceweasel and a Platforms Debian does not support (like OS2). Examples of branded code, samples of API and other branded stuff. http://times.debian.net/1022-iceweasel There that explains the stuff from a more lay term perspective. IOW, expanded the package to compile on all the Debian supported architectures. Please stop using generalities, when the stuff is quickly found. IOW GIYF (Google Is Your Friend) in this instance. The thing is, Debian has done this many times. CDRecord/WODIM is one good example. Cheers. -- greg@gregfolkert.net Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at the playfield. -- Thane Walkup
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part