22:
119:
172:
147:
77:
53:
449:. You'll see that there's more to it than that - granted not much more, but removing subsystems, preferences like pipelining, and the odd change like disabling IPv6. I'd say it's just slightly more than a build. Fork (to me) has some forward looking divergent intent, which I don't think any of the forks plan to do much, so they're all more like patched versions. What wording can we agree on? "Technically fork, but practically patch."
581:. The template's other content, links to a bunch of obscure forks, seems to have little relevance to anything, unless the user's got a particular hankering to check out every fork. It might make sense to put this on pages about Firefox forks so it can be used as a nav box, but beyond that it does not seem useful.
403:
I've changed the TOC. I'm happy with it now. There's a difference between mentioning
Firefox/Mozilla and having a box title Firefox/Mozilla with software that doesn't come from Mozilla or is allowed to be called Firefox. See what I mean - it's just closeness of association. Others have mentioned this
783:
I removed the applications from the list that are only tangentially related to
Firefox—yet again, by way of Mozilla, e.g., Miro and Songbird based on what can be collectively described as the "Mozilla platform," and IceApe, IceDove, and other GNU/free equivalents, which should certainly be mentioned
758:
I just made some necessary changes to the template, because, since its creation, it has drifted away from the TOC sidebar aspect and transformed into to an indiscriminate list of vaguely
Mozilla-related subject matter (and an inadequate one at that). To put it simply: much of the information here is
515:
It was easiest to put disambiguation at the top of the history, and features articles. I've then recycled the TOC as a community box, with the single reference to the main
Firefox article, very low down in a smaller space, directly where the 3rd party stuff is. I managed to get it much smaller so it
385:
Don't get too worked up about this. If the 3rd party builds are based on firefox, then this can be discussed with the scope of
Firefox. What you seem to be suggesting is that the word 'Firefox' cannot be mentioned on anything other than articles about the official 'Firefox' and 'Mozilla' pages. This
312:
custom variants of the browser, because it's heavily related to the original. It's based on them so it's "part" of the original. Now, on the legal front, could it be elaborated how including a firefox TOC on the page would infringe copyright/trademark? I know
Mozilla is not really Free software per
820:
I understand your concern as it grew after the last time I cleaned it up. Balancing that though - and central to the whole
Firefox issue - is the ability to extend the browser, and embracing the whole development community. We do need to provide some "linking" for this ecosystem, more visible than
274:
Agreed. Someone needs to do this. Until then, I think it is much safer to remove potential
Trademark issue this side of Firefox 2.0 release. Considering the trademark issues with Mozilla - in particular their insistence that the Firefox logo is not used on 3rd party builds, I have removed the
544:
I don't really see the point of this template. The only significant content in the box is the various forks of
Firefox, which seem to be pretty much irrelevant to most of the articles this template's on. I think this template should be removed from most of the articles it's currently part of.
321:
that IMHO does not infringe any copyright/trademark by adding this TOC there. Besides, the TOC that links to an article should be included in the said article by default. Hmm.. This issue's been around since may, it seems, and IMHO due to lack of participation, I suggest we get
249:
Custom distributions shouldn't get such a prominent location on the
Firefox page. Sure, there needs to be a way to navigate around the various custom distributions, but putting it under the Firefox TOC doesn't seem like the best way to me, and somehow borders on advertising.
863:
spelt out...FF plugins (and maybe builds) - either we need a mention in the FF TOC, or a 2nd TOC. Higher visibility than just category links is vital as it's arguably a key part of the FF ecosystem, and next to open-source, the killer technology in/with FF.
433:
How is it not a fork? Is it a custom package of the official binaries like Firefox Portable or TorPark are? No, it's an unauthorized build by a third-party project with a different license. If you think Swiftfox isn't a fork, then IceWeasel isn't a fork
371:
Firefox is trademark. be careful what you suggest the term be associated with! 3rd party builds have strict conditions about this. I don't have a ref on me (just when I need one), but it's the close association - inside one box = one happy family = ;(
459:
All those are build time options. The code has not been chanmged. It is simple built with different flags and the icons changed. A fork would have changed something, removed something , or added something besides the icon the MPL requires to be
317:. But there's no logo or recognizable symbol aside from the mention of the firefox name on the TOC. (Which, I think constitutes some kind of fair use/free speech thing) There's another issue that the TOC is removed from
422:
I noticed that Swiftfox is listed as a Fork. To me it is not, it is a build. A recompile of the firefox code with nothing changed but the firefox icon, license, and compile options. Should it be listed as a fork?
603:
The extensions are the killer feature of FX. Bottom line is - categories are not overtly visible. Do you know a better way of increasing the visibility of the extensions, forks and associated community?
633:, and the myriad niche forks of Firefox are possibly relevant to articles about extensions, which comprise most of the articles including this template. It seems unimportant that they be visible.
222:
I don't understand why the template has this specific link to an extension and no others. It's not even the most popular extension. If anything, it appears to be advertisement, so I removed it. -
469:
Anyhow, this issue is moot as I was forced to coalesce the two categories to save space in the TOC a while back (see below), and Swiftfox categorisation was changed to build, as better fits it.
839:
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Could you elucidate? I'm having trouble pairing meaning derived from your comment with the effects of my changes or my own comments. --
727:
780:
I removed the Book of Mozilla from the Lineage section. Again, I think it would be better placed in a broader Mozilla-focused template, as it's not Firefox specific.
516:
fits, partly by combining the Forks and Builds so we don't have to get into minutia of categorisation, when they're all 3rd party or broadly community activities.
334:
I'm not so much interested in cherry-picking worthy software, but legals. Mozilla a very insistent on trademark issues wrt 3rd party builds. Best to not go there
487:
article. Could the template be changed to appear at the bottom of the page as a navigation aid that could be included in the main article rather than a TOC? --
386:
is not so. This would mean to in no circumstance could the term be used as a comparison point or as a way to link the 3rd party build to the original build.-
268:
777:
The template now follows convention by explicitly linking to the articles split off from the Firefox article, in some attempt to actually resemble a TOC.
435:
231:
530:
I've removed "Mozilla" from the top title. I think I'll leave it with this single word "Firefox" so it has lowest chance of changing name so often.
560:
On the extensions it allows navigation. On the browsers too. Perhaps more importantly, it links the development community around Mozilla/Firefox.
473:
295:
244:
464:
427:
873:
850:
830:
461:
438:
424:
814:
796:
412:
390:
902:
642:
608:
590:
564:
376:
366:
353:
342:
671:
907:
892:
647:
I can see using this template on the major Firefox articles, but not on every single extension that has a Firefox page. For example,
506:
Template should be either split in 2 - 1. official navigation (if needed by History and Features pages), and 2. Unofficial articles
453:
897:
573:
Besides listing the forks of Firefox, I'm not seeing much point to the template. Extensions, for instance, are obviously linked to
501:
314:
520:
510:
748:
554:
753:
93:
743:
731:
712:
326:? I'll post an attention grabber on the firefox & swiftfox talk page first. Feureau 19:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
226:
912:
658:
534:
478:
349:
The logo has only been removed in the last 24hr because I insisted. We need to go further than that though, IMHO
128:
63:
917:
771:
84:
58:
178:
152:
291:
change or remove that logo, and the strong association of Mozilla/Firefox with non Mozilla/Firefox builds.
283:
justify the use and association of the Firefox logo on non Mozilla articles on this page before they re-add.
539:
33:
698:
665:. The former is an issue affecting one of the world's superpowers, the latter isn't nearly so important.
578:
723:
691:
92:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
845:
810:
792:
717:
738:
662:
496:
338:. A separate box for alternatives - across FF or all browsers, I don't mind. Just stay neutral.
217:
265:
39:
703:
183:
157:
8:
763:
651:
840:
806:
788:
767:
626:
525:
869:
826:
735:
638:
586:
550:
488:
669:
734:, but does link to articles with tenuous links to Firefox? Is this intentional? —
574:
484:
261:
279:
as a precautionary measure (it contains the logo). Please could someone either:
630:
787:
I will now begin cleaning up the use of this template on irrelevant pages. --
886:
709:
387:
323:
865:
822:
634:
605:
582:
561:
546:
531:
517:
507:
470:
450:
409:
373:
363:
350:
339:
292:
695:
685:
666:
241:
223:
118:
770:. For that we have the much more appropriate and much more expanded
694:, which is used in this template, has been nominated for deletion.
446:
318:
276:
171:
146:
89:
76:
52:
405:
260:
A list of Firefox custom distributions that could be linked from
801:
On second thought, I've removed the fork list entirely. This is
483:
Is this template relevant anymore? It got deleted from the main
722:
Why does this not link to very Firefox related articles like
237:
784:
in the SeaMonkey and Thunderbird articles, but not here.
408:
article now, but in the new Unofficial versions section.
762:
The Mozilla subsection is gone. It contained links to
257:
A separate "custom Firefox distribution" template and
88:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
708:Is there any reason it's been changed to yellow?
625:Again, it's hard to see how articles such as the
884:
181:, a project which is currently considered to be
236:Where should a Firefox based distribution like
232:Custom distributions & trademark issues
805:what the "See also" sections are for. --
404:too. I've added the TOC back to the main
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
759:not within the scope of this template.
885:
82:This template is within the scope of
21:
19:
177:This article is within the scope of
15:
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
732:Market adoption of Mozilla Firefox
117:
14:
929:
903:Template-Class Computing articles
360:no way part of Firefox or Mozilla
908:NA-importance Computing articles
893:Template-Class software articles
358:and no, 3rd party builds are in
170:
145:
75:
51:
20:
898:NA-importance software articles
736:Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
659:Censorship in the United States
308:I think the TOC should include
772:Mozilla organizations template
126:This template is supported by
102:Knowledge:WikiProject Software
1:
643:03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
609:01:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
193:Knowledge:WikiProject Mozilla
105:Template:WikiProject Software
96:and see a list of open tasks.
591:15:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
565:11:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
555:22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
535:20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
521:18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
511:13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
502:08:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
474:14:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
465:16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
454:13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
439:04:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
428:04:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
413:13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
391:21:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
377:19:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
367:19:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
354:19:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
343:19:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
296:00:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
196:Template:WikiProject Mozilla
7:
754:New changes to the template
728:Features of Mozilla Firefox
579:Category:Mozilla extensions
275:Firefox TOC (section) from
10:
934:
724:History of Mozilla Firefox
699:04:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
692:List of Firefox extensions
227:07:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
874:10:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
851:15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
831:11:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
165:
125:
70:
46:
815:05:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
797:05:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
749:00:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
269:21:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
245:09:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
238:http://webconverger.com/
821:just using categories.
713:13:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
672:22:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
479:Relevance in Knowledge?
445:Actually, please check
913:All Computing articles
663:Water buffalo incident
362:. We cannot go there!
122:
918:All Software articles
129:WikiProject Computing
121:
657:is on articles like
540:Use of this template
85:WikiProject Software
764:Mozilla Corporation
179:WikiProject Mozilla
768:Mozilla Foundation
661:, but not on, say
627:Mozilla Foundation
123:
34:content assessment
848:
500:
315:issue with debian
215:
214:
211:
210:
207:
206:
140:
139:
136:
135:
108:software articles
925:
844:
656:
650:
494:
266:mintchocicecream
201:
200:
199:Mozilla articles
197:
194:
191:
174:
167:
166:
161:
149:
142:
141:
110:
109:
106:
103:
100:
79:
72:
71:
66:
55:
48:
47:
25:
24:
23:
16:
933:
932:
928:
927:
926:
924:
923:
922:
883:
882:
756:
746:
741:
720:
718:Choice of links
706:
696:John Vandenberg
688:
654:
648:
575:Mozilla Firefox
542:
528:
485:Mozilla Firefox
481:
262:Mozilla Firefox
234:
220:
198:
195:
192:
189:
188:
155:
107:
104:
101:
98:
97:
61:
12:
11:
5:
931:
921:
920:
915:
910:
905:
900:
895:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
856:
855:
854:
853:
834:
833:
755:
752:
744:
739:
719:
716:
705:
702:
687:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
631:Spread Firefox
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
596:
595:
594:
593:
568:
567:
541:
538:
527:
524:
480:
477:
457:
456:
442:
441:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
396:
395:
394:
393:
380:
379:
369:
356:
346:
345:
330:
328:
327:
304:
301:
299:
298:
285:
284:
272:
271:
258:
233:
230:
219:
218:Fasterfox link
216:
213:
212:
209:
208:
205:
204:
202:
175:
163:
162:
150:
138:
137:
134:
133:
124:
114:
113:
111:
94:the discussion
80:
68:
67:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
930:
919:
916:
914:
911:
909:
906:
904:
901:
899:
896:
894:
891:
890:
888:
875:
871:
867:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
852:
847:
842:
841:C. A. Russell
838:
837:
836:
835:
832:
828:
824:
819:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
807:C. A. Russell
804:
799:
798:
794:
790:
789:C. A. Russell
785:
781:
778:
775:
773:
769:
765:
760:
751:
750:
747:
742:
737:
733:
729:
725:
715:
714:
711:
701:
700:
697:
693:
673:
670:
668:
664:
660:
653:
646:
645:
644:
641:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
610:
607:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
592:
589:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
571:
570:
569:
566:
563:
559:
558:
557:
556:
553:
552:
548:
537:
536:
533:
523:
522:
519:
513:
512:
509:
504:
503:
498:
493:
491:
486:
476:
475:
472:
467:
466:
463:
455:
452:
448:
444:
443:
440:
437:
432:
431:
430:
429:
426:
414:
411:
407:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
392:
389:
384:
383:
382:
381:
378:
375:
370:
368:
365:
361:
357:
355:
352:
348:
347:
344:
341:
337:
333:
332:
331:
325:
320:
316:
311:
307:
306:
305:
302:
297:
294:
290:
289:
288:
282:
281:
280:
278:
270:
267:
263:
259:
256:
255:
254:
253:I suggest:
251:
247:
246:
243:
239:
229:
228:
225:
203:
186:
185:
180:
176:
173:
169:
168:
164:
159:
154:
151:
148:
144:
143:
131:
130:
120:
116:
115:
112:
95:
91:
87:
86:
81:
78:
74:
73:
69:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
802:
800:
786:
782:
779:
776:
761:
757:
721:
707:
704:Title colour
689:
637:
585:
549:
543:
529:
514:
505:
489:
482:
468:
458:
436:67.168.0.155
421:
359:
335:
329:
309:
303:
300:
286:
273:
252:
248:
235:
221:
182:
127:
83:
40:WikiProjects
29:
887:Categories
652:Censorship
526:Unbranding
64:Computing
710:Tobz1000
460:changed.
447:Swiftfox
388:Localzuk
319:Swiftfox
277:Swiftfox
184:inactive
158:inactive
99:Software
90:software
59:Software
30:template
866:Widefox
823:Widefox
803:exactly
745:contrib
635:Twinxor
606:Widefox
583:Twinxor
562:Widefox
547:Twinxor
532:Widefox
518:Widefox
508:Widefox
492:retford
471:Widefox
451:Widefox
410:Widefox
406:Firefox
374:Widefox
364:Widefox
351:Widefox
340:Widefox
310:notable
293:Widefox
190:Mozilla
153:Mozilla
667:Veinor
434:too.--
336:at all
242:Hendry
36:scale.
313:it's
224:Sikon
28:This
870:talk
846:talk
827:talk
811:talk
793:talk
766:and
740:talk
730:and
690:Hi,
577:and
497:talk
490:tghe
462:Kilz
425:Kilz
240:go?
686:Afd
324:RfC
287:or
889::
872:)
849:)
829:)
813:)
795:)
774:.
726:,
655:}}
649:{{
629:,
264:--
62::
868:(
843:(
825:(
809:(
791:(
639:t
587:t
551:t
499:)
495:(
187:.
160:)
156:(
132:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
