QUOTE (cluberti @ Apr 17 2008, 05:09 PM)

QUOTE (Analada @ Apr 17 2008, 03:42 PM)

Cluberti, would you address the "stopped" Firefox 3 thread soon, please; one way or the other. At least everyone would then know where we stood. I sincerely hope common sense will prevail. This is, after all freeware and open source we're talking about. One wonders sometimes...
<snip>If the FF people (an actual FF dev or a spokesperson) says you can make the binaries portable in this manner, then I don't think there will be any more noise from the mods here about it. Short of that, it's still in limbo. However, we've decided not to take any further actions with regards to this project, until there's word from the Firefox team directly on how they want to address it (if at all - again, this may be perfectly OK). <snip>
From the mozilla.support.firefox Newsgroup:
"An issue similar to this was just addressed in Navigator 9 where a user
wrapped NN 9 into a portable version. There is/was no legal issue
involved .. AND .. NN 9 isn't even open-source."
-- Jay Garcia Netscape Champion UFAQ -
http://www.UFAQ.org Also from another person:
"if it's just wrapping a binary from Mozilla, I don't think there's any
problem with calling the browser itself Firefox. Naming the wrapper
may be a stickier issue. I'm not a lawyer, so I won't hazard an
opinion. You might want to read some of the documents linked from
<http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/index.html>. There's
also an e-mail address for trademark questions at the bottom of the
page."
Please see the whole thread at at the Newsgroup server 216.196.97.169 port 119 under "Firefox 3 on win98SE platform".
The naming /might/ be an issue. One experienced guy on that forum made the comment:
"...They [the Mozilla Foundation] may view this as a new Mozilla based product that should have an independent name."
On the other hand the Mozilla Foundation might not.
Has anyone asked them? Anyway if it's just a question of naming the wrapper it can probably easily be resolved. As a matter of fact TiHiy always /did/ call the wrapper by another name, i.e. not Firefox; so there probably never was an issue.
Finally, to be perfectly candid with you, I hope that I'm not being a little too innocent here. And that behind all this (perhaps) understandable hesitancy on your part there is not a certain commercial entity which might not wish to see this solution advanced, and thus extend the effective usefulness of an "old" OS (?)