On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Quentin Armitage
<Quentin(a)armitage.org.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 12:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 13:37:11 -0400,
> Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit
> > > to Fedora. It seems to mostly benefit Mozilla. I don't see why we
should
> > > be breaking our rules to help them.
> >
> >
> > I think you are grossly misjudging the relative visibility and
> > importance of the Firefox and Fedora brands... nobody knows what Fedora
> > is, while most computer users will have at least heard about Firefox.
>
> Yeah, but "most computer users" isn't relevant. The question is about
what
> is relevant to Fedora users. Changing the name of Firefox will have little
> affect on them since it is installed as the default web browser. Being able
> to fix bugs in a timely manner on the other hand, is going to have a
> significant affect on them.
Not a nice idea, but, at least as a temporary workaround, could Fedora
ship both a Firefox and an Iceweasel; Firefox complying with the
trademark rules, and Iceweasel working as users would want it.
Could the Fedora shipped Firefox even have a home page that says "Have
you tried Iceweasel ..."? And bugs reported against Firefox could be
closed with "Fixed in Iceweasel".
That is nonsense ... it just creates confusion and maintenance overhead.