zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. mattl+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-05-26 00:10:46
Yeah I’m surprised more forks don’t have this issue. Maybe they’re too small for Mozilla to care.
replies(3): >>lolind+Jj >>PrimeM+ao >>aragil+kP
◧
2. lolind+Jj[view] [source] 2023-05-26 03:12:30
>>mattl+(OP)
LibreWolf isn't strictly a fork of Firefox, it's a preconfigured installation that locks things down and disables anti-features. So it's strictly accurate to use the Firefox user agent, because that's what actually gets compiled.
◧
3. PrimeM+ao[view] [source] 2023-05-26 03:51:49
>>mattl+(OP)
Wasn't the issue with the Iceweasel UA purely on Debian's end, them not like or agreeing to the Firefox terms? I don't think most forks would have that issue
replies(1): >>aragil+eP
◧◩
4. aragil+eP[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-05-26 07:53:59
>>PrimeM+ao
No, it was a trademark issue, raised by Mozilla (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622) and seemingly resolved on their (Mozilla's) end (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815006). For what it's worth, the recent Rust trademark issue seems to be of a similar vein (and the justifications around the Firefox sound like those used in Rust).
replies(2): >>PrimeM+7Y >>accoun+gAc
◧
5. aragil+kP[view] [source] 2023-05-26 07:55:22
>>mattl+(OP)
Mozilla apparently fixed this (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815006) so it sounds like forks don't have that issue now?
◧◩◪
6. PrimeM+7Y[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-05-26 09:19:38
>>aragil+eP
Thanks for clarifying!
◧◩◪
7. accoun+gAc[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-05-30 16:05:47
>>aragil+eP
Can you provide any evidence that the User Agent name was a trademark issue. As in the name exposed to websites. Because that is the only thing that matters here and also where everyone claims to be a variant of Mozilla for compatibility.
[go to top]