Comment 396 for bug 269656
Revision history for this message
| Prateek Karandikar (prateek.karandikar) wrote | #396 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
35a32c5
(Get the code!)
Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
"I am resolutely opposed to calling an unbranded firefox "Ubuntu Browser" (because we didn't write it) and I'm
equally opposed to calling it "Iceweasel" (because our inability to agree with Mozilla is not also a rationale to belittle or demean them)."
Can the OS itself be called "Ubuntu"? Much of it isn't written by "Ubuntu" as such, but by the developers of Linux, Gnome, KDE, Debian, X.org, and so on. One could say that names like "OpenOffice" appear where they should in the UI, it's not called "Ubuntu Office Suite". Fine. But what about Debian? Is it acknowledged anywhere in the UI?
Another example is Compiz: it could have been called that, but it's called "Desktop Effects", and CompizConfig Settings Manager is called "Advanced Desktop Effects Settings".
I'm *not* complaining about this here, I'm sure this is ok under the GPL or whatever other free licenses are involved. The same goes for Firefox too: there is source code available under GPL. Go ahead and use it, and modify it if need be. In case of Compiz there was an option to call it Compiz. In case of Firefox, if Ubuntu uses the source code provided, and makes modifications, then Mozilla specifically does not want it to be called Firefox (am I right?). In this case using a different name is perfectly reasonable. Call it FreeFox, I'd say, and explain that the functionality is the same as Firefox, plus it's free!
Ubuntu seems reluctant to use the freedoms granted by the GPLed Firefox source code. Please don't bend over backwards to give special treatment to Mozilla.
Is Debian demeaning and belittling Mozilla by calling the browser Iceweasel?