* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:20:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > That there is such a hue and cry over rebranding Firefox in Debian > > > indicates to me that it *is* a significant burden we would be (and are > > > now) asking of our downstream users. > > Second, the real problems with rebranding are not with the technical > > work that has to happen, from the sound of it. They're with user > > recognition and the ability of users to find the right package for > > something they want to run. That *is* a significant issue, at least > > in my opinion, but Debian taking that hit doesn't do *anything* to > > help our downstream users. They still end up having to either take > > the same hit or now undo Debian work to get back to the name that > > their users will recognize. > > I was under the impression that downstreams could call the packages > firefox as they had been blessed with official Debian penguin pee as > long as they didn't then change them and it was only when they were > modified that they potentially had to go to the Mozilla Foundation for a > license.
That is correct, but (correct me if I'm wrong Gerv), but "change" would include such things as recompiling it. > Did I get the wrong end of the stick? -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
