BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | reply to Googolplex
Re: NY Times? said by Googolplex:
I was referring to a license on the code, not on any partiuclar preperation or distrobution. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I know that anyone can simply rebrand it and try to sell it if they really want to, even with a license. Pretty pointless though, considering that you can just download it for free as well.
No, you can't. The Mozilla foundation could stop or restrict their own distribution of the software at any time. We would then have to rely on OTHER, less trusted sources to download it, or a fork thereof.
The whole point of Mozilla.org was to have a single branding of the main code branch. If Mozilla.org's reputation is compromised, it harms the progress of Mozilla and Fireweasel as a whole. We have every responsibility to question Mozilla.org's stewardship, exactly because we care about Mozilla.
Actually, Gandhi was angling for that great role in 'Sneakers' the whole time.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
| --- "We would then have to rely on OTHER, less trusted sources to download it, or a fork thereof."
Thats not the same as "No, you can't.", now is it? And why should any other source necessarily be less trusted?
--- "The whole point of Mozilla.org was to have a single branding of the main code branch. If Mozilla.org's reputation is compromised, it harms the progress of Mozilla and Fireweasel as a whole. We have every responsibility to question Mozilla.org's stewardship, exactly because we care about Mozilla."
I agree, this is true, however the Mozilla foundation is quite transparent. No need to speculate and accuse, as any such agenda would be nearly impossible for them to conceal. |
