| |||||||||||||
where does it says that?where does it says that?Posted Aug 13, 2009 4:08 UTC (Thu) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136)In reply to: where does it says that? by coriordan Parent article: Ubuntu removes "multisearch"
It's easy for distributors to not use the trademarks on Mozilla
programs
-- just build them with the "branding switch" off. This is what Arch Linux
already does. Debian also uses their custom branding on Mozilla
programs.
(Log in to post comments)
where does it says that? Posted Aug 13, 2009 18:20 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
The technical steps are indeed trivial, but the user confusion cost is high.
When using the trademark, you can't make changes without Mozilla's permission - i.e. you can't apply security patches. Despite this, distros such as Ubuntu have accepted the trademark restrictions, so they've obviously estimated very highly the user overall cost of removing the trademark.
I don't know the whole Debian story but I think it's that they switched to their branding before the "unbrand" feature was added to the Firefox compile process. You might find the answer on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software...
where does it says that? Posted Aug 13, 2009 23:40 UTC (Thu) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > the user confusion cost is highI don't agree with that. It's obvious that a rebranded Firefox is really Firefox. > When using the trademark, you can't make changes without Mozilla's permission - i.e. you can't apply security patches. Which is yet another reason why distributors should not use the official branding.
where does it says that? Posted Aug 14, 2009 20:56 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] I wish you were right about changing the name not being a big deal, but if you were right, why did Ubuntu agree to those extremely restrictive terms?
|
|||||||||||||