Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

Romashka · 2006-10-09 17:50:24

Gnuzilla is the GNU version of the Mozilla suite, and IceWeasel is the GNU version of the Firefox browser. Its main advantage is an ethical one: it is entirely free software. While the source code from the Mozilla project is free software, the binaries that they release include additional non-free software. Also, they distribute non-free software as plug-ins. (IceWeasel does keep the triple licensing used by Firefox to facilitate the reuse of code.)

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnuzilla/

UPDATE: it seems that they forked only GPL code to be able to get rid of MPL. (because full compiled version can be distributed only as MPL, because contains non-GPL compatible parts).
And it is already supported by Debian.

EDIT: It all reminds me XFree86. Its developers changed license to less free just because they wanted more credits, and you all know how this ended. Where's now XFree86? Instead X11 changed license to free and then with the help of FreeDesktop it is now far ahead of XFree86. These projects just swapped their places.

arooaroo · 2006-10-09 19:28:54

Whilst Xfree86 did lose to xorg after its license change, that doesn't mean that it was a direct cause. Sure, the stink that FSF made about the possible GPL conflict created a lot of anti-xfree86 sentiment. At the end of the day, xfree86 had been losing a lot of momentum. They had been losing key developers and progress - in particular the demand for modular x windows implementation - was waining.

Xorg was at the right place at the right time to collect all that negative energy and turn it in to some positive motivation towards making real improvements to xfree86. Forks are often caused as a response to "mismanagement" and I think that's why so many people got behind the new xorg fork.

With Mozilla, no one but RMS is stewing over the MPL license and the fact that the binary can contain non-free components. So what? It's still an open source project that delivers a piece of software that people want to use. Given that the main license contention is that It's Not GPL-only, then I still think that being OSI compliant will ensure broad support through Linux distributors.

yankees26 · 2006-10-09 20:11:35

Nice, although the links to the source code and binary don't work on their website. I wonder how this will play out

Romashka · 2006-10-09 21:33:24

New name here.

Alexander Sack wants to fork Thunderbird too:

As I red the post of MJ Ray on planet, I contacted the gnuzilla project and offered to join them in order to make them a good upstream for distributors that cannot obey the new mozilla trademark policy.
My current preference is to use snoweagle for thunderbird. IMO it would be a good choice, as it would be in the same spirit as iceweasel for firefox.
Anyway, more ideas are welcome

So, forked thunderbird will most probably have the name "SnowEagle".

Lone_Wolf · 2006-10-09 21:47:13

Then i guess we will see Iceweasel / Snoweagle in testing soon.

lessthanjake · 2006-10-10 03:43:07

Finaly (I have been waiting for this since long before the debian mess)

Hope it will start to integrate with desktop. Having applications who need special treatment is a pita. Mozilla apps do need it own theme(even its gtk), its own dictionaty(even if I got aspell installed), its own languagepack(even if all other applications is in my language). Imagin having to threat every that way, it would take half your life.

Good luck to the new project!!

milosh · 2006-10-11 11:36:51

yankees26 wrote:

Nice, although the links to the source code and binary don't work on their website. I wonder how this will play out

Here you find last version of Iceweasel. It works really nice.
Regards

iphitus · 2006-10-11 13:06:34

Lone_Wolf wrote:

Then i guess we will see Iceweasel / Snoweagle in testing soon.

Probably not. It'd be foolish to switch this early in the game, while Firefox/Thunderbird still have the momentum.

As it is, you'll find your next firefox release will have branding disabled, will not come with icons, and will be called 'Firefox Community Edition'. I'm not sure why debian didnt go down the path of simply disabling the branding option and letting it fall back to that.

James

yankees26 · 2006-10-11 13:10:21

iphitus wrote:

Lone_Wolf wrote:
Then i guess we will see Iceweasel / Snoweagle in testing soon.
Probably not. It'd be foolish to switch this early in the game, while Firefox/Thunderbird still have the momentum.
As it is, you'll find your next firefox release will have branding disabled, will not come with icons, and will be called 'Firefox Community Edition'. I'm not sure why debian didnt go down the path of simply disabling the branding option and letting it fall back to that.
James

What do you mean by no icons and disabled branding (I'm new to the whole Firefox predicament)?

@milosh: Thanks for the link.

iphitus · 2006-10-11 13:28:59

yankees26 wrote:

What do you mean by no icons and disabled branding (I'm new to the whole Firefox predicament)?
@milosh: Thanks for the link.

Then read up

Branding = official firefox logos/icons, and having the thing actually called firefox everywhere.

Firefox's source includes an option to disable this, for such cases as when the code has been modified and there is no allowance to use the official branding.

In this case, the icons would change to a plain globe without the firefox, and the name changes to 'Firefox Community Edition' indicating it has changed from stock firefox.

James

yankees26 · 2006-10-11 13:49:49

Ah. If branding is disabled is the binary still named firefox? Or generic-mozilla-made-browser

I'm gonnz give IceWeasel a try and if it loads faster than firefox and doesn't have any major disadvantages, it'll be my browser of choice.

xterminus · 2006-10-11 14:16:48

arooaroo wrote:

Xorg was at the right place at the right time to collect all that negative energy and turn it in to some positive motivation towards making real improvements to xfree86. Forks are often caused as a response to "mismanagement" and I think that's why so many people got behind the new xorg fork.
With Mozilla, no one but RMS is stewing over the MPL license and the fact that the binary can contain non-free components. So what? It's still an open source project that delivers a piece of software that people want to use. Given that the main license contention is that It's Not GPL-only, then I still think that being OSI compliant will ensure broad support through Linux distributors.

Read this this blog entry by Matthew Garrett (a VERY active debian developer and leader). In short, he describes why the fork was not only necessary, but why the requirements imposed by Mozilla on the Debian project resulted in the dropping of firefox from etch and the inclusion of IceWeasel.

The trademark issue is not something that can be fixed with a license. GPL/MPL has nothing to do with the branding of firefox/mozilla - but the Mozilla project tried to use their trademark to impose "non-free" licensing conditions on the debian folks. That's just wrong.

Romashka · 2006-10-11 16:27:49

Nice article: Behind the Debian and Mozilla dispute over use of Firefox

deficite · 2006-10-12 13:43:17

I think this could be a great thing. There are many beefs I have with Firefox that might be alleviated by going to a more open model such as this. I'm hoping for more integration as someone else already mentioned. Plus, the linux version can get the attention it deserves now because IceWeasel shouldn't have to worry about some jihad to convert the IE masses to Firefox.

benplaut · 2006-10-13 03:25:34

.

Last edited by benplaut (2021-06-25 12:40:53)

woogie · 2006-10-13 16:54:48

I've gotta say I'm cheering for Debian/GNU in this mess. Has anyone noticed recently that the Mozilla community is acting less like a community, and more like a company? I mean look at this quote from linux.com:

"Connor says, however, that while he appreciates Debian's point of view, Mozilla's logos and icons provide a visual identity as well as an assurance of quality to the user. He says that Mozilla's stance on protecting its branding elements is no different than that of any other company that wants to ensure a high-quality user experience."

Protecting its branding elements? Any other company? Ensuring a high-quality user experience? Seriously. What's with this double-talk? Open source is a community - it's not us and them, not company and customer, it's a group of people working together to make the best Free software they can. And it's feeling more and more like the people at Mozilla have lost sight of that.

So I'm going to welcome IceWeasel, SnowEagle and GNUzilla with open arms. Heck, it might even be a project to launch myself at, contribute my first patch, file a useful bug.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-10-09 17:50:24

Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

#2 2006-10-09 19:28:54

Re: Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

#3 2006-10-09 20:11:35

Re: Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

#4 2006-10-09 21:33:24

Re: Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

#5 2006-10-09 21:47:13

Re: Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

#6 2006-10-10 03:43:07

Re: Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

#7 2006-10-11 11:36:51

Re: Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

#8 2006-10-11 13:06:34

Re: Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

#9 2006-10-11 13:10:21

Re: Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

#10 2006-10-11 13:28:59

Re: Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

#11 2006-10-11 13:49:49

Re: Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

#12 2006-10-11 14:16:48

Re: Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

#13 2006-10-11 16:27:49

Re: Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

#14 2006-10-12 13:43:17

Re: Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

#15 2006-10-13 03:25:34

Re: Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

#16 2006-10-13 16:54:48

Re: Firefox and Mozilla Suite are forked!

Board footer