You are not logged in.
I'm wondering why Firefox in Arch has the official branding again, with the release of 4.0. I liked it without the branding. But I'm also just curious what's up with the change.
Last edited by cb474 (2011-03-28 00:58:45)
Offline
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=115512
and wiki provides no reason
Offline
branding has been enabled because unofficial branding lacks love. It's all branded as nightly and you have a huge button saying Mozilla Developer Preview instead of Firefox or codename, like in the previews versions.
Mozilla Developer Preview would start conversations about our versiune of firefox, if is unstable or stable.
Last edited by wonder (2011-03-25 11:18:39)
Give what you have. To someone, it may be better than you dare to think.
Offline
While I certainly don't mind Firefox actually being called firefox, does this open Arch to complaints from Mozilla?
Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.
Offline
While I certainly don't mind Firefox actually being called firefox, does this open Arch to complaints from Mozilla?
no
Give what you have. To someone, it may be better than you dare to think.
Offline
@ Wonder and other developers :
if i recall correctly archlinux changed to the firefox community version because of issues with the licenses that come with firefox.
The main problem was that any patches archlinux applied were only allowed to be used AFTER they had been approved by Mozilla.
For every change in the patches, a new approval was needed.
see this thread : https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=25541
What has changed ?
Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.
(A works at time B) && (time C > time B ) ≠ (A works at time C)
Offline
no.
Give what you have. To someone, it may be better than you dare to think.
Offline
Hmm, that wasn't a yes/no question...
Offline
Hmm, that wasn't a yes/no question...
no
The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck, is the day they make a vacuum cleaner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if they tell you that I've lost my mind, maybe it's not gone just a little hard to find...
Offline
So will future Firefox packages keep the branding or is this one-time only?
Offline
Hmm, that wasn't a yes/no question...
I suppose he was referring to your belief that it was a license issue.
I need real, proper pen and paper for this.
Offline
Ramses de Norre wrote:Hmm, that wasn't a yes/no question...
I suppose he was referring to your belief that it was a license issue.
It wasn't my belief, but I do am interested in what changed. Could someone elaborate a bit? Do the devs just refrain from patching now or did mozilla change its policy? I googled a bit but all the mozilla terminology and legal stuff is quite confusing and the documents I did found still state that only the official builds may use the firefox name and artwork.
Offline
schivmeister wrote:Ramses de Norre wrote:Hmm, that wasn't a yes/no question...
I suppose he was referring to your belief that it was a license issue.
It wasn't my belief, but I do am interested in what changed. Could someone elaborate a bit? Do the devs just refrain from patching now or did mozilla change its policy? I googled a bit but all the mozilla terminology and legal stuff is quite confusing and the documents I did found still state that only the official builds may use the firefox name and artwork.
I *think* it just became too inconvenient to follow the licensing policy. If mozilla complains I'm sure something would get done about it, but as long as they don't, no problem.
Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.
Offline
Somehow I understand this "NO" with a different meaning.
I think Archlinux's firefox version 3 actually doesn't contain any patch at all, so it's possible to keep the official branding with firefox3 but the developers want to use the unofficial branding version instead.
And now, for firefox4 they use official branding because:
branding has been enabled because unofficial branding lacks love. It's all branded as nightly and you have a huge button saying Mozilla Developer Preview instead of Firefox or codename, like in the previews versions.
So basically if this didn't happen, official branding won't be enabled at all.
Correct me if I'm wrong
Last edited by lives2evil (2011-03-26 14:11:30)
tsujeruplive, tnarongisi... ... ... ... ɥsılƃuǝ sı sıɥʇ
Offline
@Ramses de Norre just follow the text chronologically
ngoonee wrote:While I certainly don't mind Firefox actually being called firefox, does this open Arch to complaints from Mozilla?
wonder wrote:no
Lone_Wolf wrote:The main problem was that any patches archlinux applied were only allowed to be used AFTER they had been approved by Mozilla.
For every change in the patches, a new approval was needed.
see this thread : https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=25541What has changed ?
wonder wrote:no
And YES, we did asked for permission.
@lives2evil yes. if the unofficially branding was good enough, i didn't had the intention to bow to mozilla and ask for permission.
Last edited by wonder (2011-03-26 14:49:58)
Give what you have. To someone, it may be better than you dare to think.
Offline
@wonder:
What has changed?
no
I don't think that's a valid answer But I was just kidding anyway
Offline
So the correct answer (other than "no") is that Firefox now has the official branding, because it was a pain for the Arch developers to implement Mozilla's licensing policy? Arch will now include the official branding, licensing be damned, and if Mozilla complains, then maybe Arch will go back to the non-branded version of Firefox? Yes? "No"?
Personally, I still liked the unofficial (non)branding better.
Offline
wonder writes three posts above that permission was sought.
Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.
Offline
wonder writes three posts above that permission was sought.
I didn't really find wonder's posts very clear and was trying to sum up, in my last post, what appeared to be said in a fragmented way over several different posts to see if I was understanding correctly.
It's also still not really clear to me either why the old way, without Firefox branding, became more onerous for developers, than the new way, with Firefox branding (but without permission). On this point, wonder writes:
branding has been enabled because unofficial branding lacks love. It's all branded as nightly and you have a huge button saying Mozilla Developer Preview instead of Firefox or codename, like in the previews versions.
Mozilla Developer Preview would start conversations about our versiune of firefox, if is unstable or stable.
What does "lacks love" mean in the context of software development? Why does the nightly branding and the "huge button" matter? Why does this all raise questions about whether Firefox is stable or not, when these sorts of questions weren't a problem in the long standing past practice of a non-branded version in Arch?
Perhaps wonder answered these questions in a manner that makes sense to other developers, who may already know what's going on anyway, but the responses in this thread seem a bit vague and unclear for those who don't know what's going on. I suppose it doesn't really matter. I'm just curious. And, as I said, I preferred the old way without the branding.
Last edited by cb474 (2011-03-27 11:24:16)
Offline
ngoonee wrote:wonder writes three posts above that permission was sought.
I didn't really find wonder's posts very clear and was trying to sum up, in my last post, what appeared to be said in a fragmented way over several different posts to see if I was understanding correctly.
Read it without paying attention to the opinions of non-TU/devs (myself included), its much clearer that way. Wonder was correcting my mistaken assumption.
wonder wrote:branding has been enabled because unofficial branding lacks love. It's all branded as nightly and you have a huge button saying Mozilla Developer Preview instead of Firefox or codename, like in the previews versions.
Mozilla Developer Preview would start conversations about our versiune of firefox, if is unstable or stable.
What does "lacks love" mean in the context of software development? Why does the nightly branding and the "huge button" matter? Why does this all raise questions about whether Firefox is stable or not, when these sorts of questions weren't a problem in the long standing past practice of a non-branded version in Arch?
Perhaps wonder answered these questions in a manner that makes sense to other developers, who may already know what's going on anyway, but the responses in this thread seem a bit vague and unclear for those who don't know what's going on. I suppose it doesn't really matter. I'm just curious. And, as I said, I preferred the old way without the branding.
'lacks love' simply means that its not kept up-to-date. That means the unofficial branding does not look like the official branding without logo, which is how its supposed to be. And it matters because this will raise about 20 forum topics and 5 ML posts from users asking why Arch hasn't updated to the latest stable firefox.
Previously it would just be called Namaroka, not preview, not dev. This time they released the software without changing that (probably oversight, or noone cares much about it).
I'm pretty sure there's quick CSS hacks to get non-branded, not sure why you'd want that though.
Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.
Offline
What about 'Lanikai'? Same fate?
Offline
'lacks love' simply means that its not kept up-to-date. That means the unofficial branding does not look like the official branding without logo, which is how its supposed to be. And it matters because this will raise about 20 forum topics and 5 ML posts from users asking why Arch hasn't updated to the latest stable firefox.
Previously it would just be called Namaroka, not preview, not dev. This time they released the software without changing that (probably oversight, or noone cares much about it).
I'm pretty sure there's quick CSS hacks to get non-branded, not sure why you'd want that though.
Thanks! I understand much better now.
Offline
I understand what wonder is saying, but have a comment :
That is what 'about firefox' shows on my system now .
no big developer preview button, nothing about nightly ...
The only thing that points to a non-branded version now are the icons used in the .desktop file,
and those are only visible in the menu.
Last edited by Lone_Wolf (2011-03-27 21:40:38)
Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.
(A works at time B) && (time C > time B ) ≠ (A works at time C)
Offline
It's an official release. Of course there won't be any developer preview button or nightly builds. And the icon in the menu is not related, it's up to the icons theme, not firefox.
Read the posts more carefully and you will understand.
@cb474: Please mark this as [Solved].
Last edited by lives2evil (2011-03-27 21:52:18)
tsujeruplive, tnarongisi... ... ... ... ɥsılƃuǝ sı sıɥʇ
Offline