Enrico Tagliavini píše v Út 12. 01. 2016 v 09:43 +0100: > Technically speaking you can modify it and still call it Firefox with > Mozilla authorization. The reason why the Firefox name and icon are > not free to use is to protect the reputation of the browser and be > able to sue abusers. Practical example: Firefox is open source, I > include a malware in it, compile and ship it from my website calling > it Firefox, including the source code (to comply with the license). > Sure enough sooner or later my fraud would come to the light, but I > surely did some damage in the mean time and ruined Mozilla's > reputation. If I call it IceWeasel, to avoid being sued because of > using the Firefox name and icon without Mozilla's authorization, and > put a different icon it's a lot harder for a malicious attacker to > trick the user to install it. This applies more to platforms where > there is no package manager and the user has to actively search for > software on the internet. Heck even on Linux it took so long to get > my > father into the idea he can do everything with the package manager. > > That being said if you take away the name and the logo it's just a > matter of time before some Fedora user is going to fall into the > trap, > so keeping the branding has some advantage. > > On the other side: Fedora is already shipping a binary different from > what Mozilla is shipping. It's many months Fedora enables gtk3 and, > as > far as I know, Red Hat is helping Mozilla in this since this is > needed > for Wayland (btw thank you, loving gtk3 Firefox). In Firefox 41 > release Fedora disabled OMTC since compiling with system cairo breaks > it (then switched to bundled cairo in 42 to ultimately solve the > issue, this is very distro independent, I have the same problem in > gentoo). Mozilla didn't sued Red Hat for this. The addon signing > thing > would be a slightly different matter I guess, but I'm sure (and hope) > some sort of mediation is possible. Red Hat and Mozilla have an agreement and regular communication, so it's not like we're inconsiderately doing whatever we want with Firefox. Jiri > On 12 January 2016 at 06:09, Rastus Vernon <rvernon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > Debian and other distributions (Trisquel, gNewSense, GuixSD) have > > used > > unbranded forks of Firefox for years and I don't think this has > > been a > > problem for them. In any case I don't think we can call "drastic" > > something that multiple other distributions do. > > > > The Debian and GNU projects consider Mozilla Firefox as proprietary > > software because it does not meet the Debian Free Software > > Guidelines > > or GNU's definition of free software. Fedora didn't follow that > > stance. > > > > I don't think whether we're using a fork or not is important. It'll > > be > > just as up-to-date, just as well supported by websites, and would > > work > > like Firefox so habbit would not be a problem. The Firefox name and > > branding is a problem for Fedora (it prevents us from modifying the > > browser), not a benefit. > > > > On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 14:00 +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: > > > > On 01/10/2016 11:29 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 14:26 +0100, Jiri Eischmann wrote: > > > > Hi, > > there is currently a case against Firefox discussed in FESCo: > > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1518 > > > > > > > > We have many different opinions in this thread. Clearly, there is > > no > > solution that will make everyone happy. I tried to formulate a > > consensus position based on the comments in this thread, which I > > suspect the majority of us can support: > > > > "Fedora Workstation prefers to ship the latest release of Firefox, > > not > > ESR releases. Shipping an unbranded version of Firefox is > > acceptable to > > us, but not ideal. Shipping a version of Firefox that blocks > > unsigned > > extensions is also acceptable to us, but not ideal." > > > > In other words: we're fine with FESCo deciding for either unbranded > > or > > locked-down Firefox, but we won't be very happy either way. Does > > this > > seem fair? > > > > > > > > My personal take on this is that we need to ship with a mainstream > > browser that is actively developed and that web sites support. > > These > > days, I think it's a choice between either Firefox or Chrome. > > > > We don't have Chrome in Fedora so this leaves Firefox. > > > > Also, shipping a browser with a widely recognizable name (Firefox) > > as > > opposed to shipping a minor fork (Icecat) has a huge benefit when > > it > > comes to people finding the web browser -- they will have used the > > same > > browser on other operating systems, making switching to Fedora > > easier. > > > > Habit plays a huge role. Take a familiar name away and it's > > suddenly > > much harder for us to compete. > > > > I think it would be fine to ask Firefox upstream to support > > additional > > trust chains to support locally packaged extensions, but if that > > fails I > > don't think we should go with anything as drastic as switching to > > an > > unbranded Firefox fork. > > > > -- > > desktop mailing list > > desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@lists.fedoraproj > > ect.org > -- > desktop mailing list > desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@lists.fedoraprojec > t.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
