AmigaOS 3 port of NetSurf concerns

Rob Kendrick rjek at netsurf-browser.org
Tue Feb 2 18:15:29 GMT 2010


On 2 Feb 2010 18:01:51 +0000
"Chris Young" <chris.young at unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk> wrote:

> 
> > 	2) For them to change the name of the browser to something
> > 	   other than NetSurf, and for them to state clearly in
> > their documentation and help that it is completely unsupported by
> > 	   and unrelated to the NetSurf Project.
> 
> I wouldn't go so far as to say "unrelated to".  Perhaps "based on code
> by" but containing "unsupported modifications".  After all, it is 99%
> NetSurf and some credit to the NetSurf browser project is due. 

Perhaps so.

> Changing the name is a tricky one.  I personally don't like the way
> Firefox has several different names depending on where you get it (the
> Debian distributed one is Iceweasel for example).  As far as the user
> is concerned they all look like Firefox, so it just generates
> confusion and reduces brand awareness.

The issue here is that I don't want the NetSurf "brand" to be
associated with the Amiga OS 3 port at all in its current state and
because of the efforts (or lack of) the people responsible have made in
integrating into the project.

> However, if the issue is retaining control/copyright of the NetSurf
> name, then perhaps if it contains code that isn't in NetSurf SVN, and
> is a build that isn't primarily distributed by netsurf-browser.org,
> then the name should need to be changed.

We have no registered trademark like NetSurf, but I do not think it is
fair to pass oneself off using it when there is a risk of the finger of
blame being pointed in the wrong direction when things go wrong.  I
certainly wouldn't want people thinking that this OS 3 port of NetSurf
is in any way representative of the RISC OS or GTK versions, for
example.  Because it isn't.

> The question is perhaps "When does NetSurf stop being NetSurf?"

When the source and appearance significantly diverges from what is
available from http://www.netsurf-browser.org/ ? :)

> PS I'd just like to make it clear that I have no involvement in the
> OS3 port of NetSurf, beyond answering the odd question. 

Understood.

> I have
> offered advice on back-porting the OS4 version and a ttengine.library
> version of font.c.  I maintain that with that file (which will need to
> be updated now) and some other minor modifications, it should be
> possible to get the OS4 version working on OS3.9 within a reasonable
> timeframe.  I think effort would be better spent on this than trying
> to add features to the Framebuffer version which it was never designed
> for.

Absolutely.

B.



More information about the netsurf-dev mailing list