Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

As we know, Firefox' branding (name, logo etc.) is non-free copyrighted, so some Linux distributions package (more-)fully-free versions.

However, I can't get a straight explanation on Wikipedia (here or here) or in the IceCat webpage about the two better-known ones: IceWeasel and IceCat.

  • Are these different projects?
  • Are they just different rebrandings of Firefox?
  • Why does Debian only have Iceweasel packages?
  • Did one of them merge into the other / become the other?
share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

I think the most useful thing to start with is that the mozilla firefox branding is copyrighted by mozilla, the branding is NOT under a licence that allows use of it without explicit permission and that the more ideologically pure distros didn't like that. All three cases mentioned on the icecat page are simply re-logoed/branded versions of firefox, done by different teams - from the icecat webpage

"The gNewSense BurningDog browser and the Debian IceWeasel browser are similarly derived from Firefox, also with the intent of being free software. Technically, however, these projects are maintained entirely independently of IceCat. (Previously, this GNU browser project was also named IceWeasel, but that proved confusing.)"

Iceweasel is probably also packaged by Debian for use in their distro, as would be Burning Dog (which itself is part of a 'pure' FOSS ubuntu spinoff). They're all firefox code, and should work the same way as firefox, but are done by different groups of people for the sake of total FOSS compliance.

To answer the specific parts of this questions - yes they are different projects, they are just rebrandings of firefox, debian only has iceweasel packages since they run the iceweasel project, and as far as I can tell, icecat changed its name from iceweasel to avoid confusion and none of the spinoffs have merged. A great anology would be Centos and Redhat - exact same situation with Centos compiling redhat's packages after stripping out the branding

share|improve this answer
    
I actually know that (maybe I should have mentioned it in the question). –  einpoklum Mar 30 '13 at 16:45
    
I'm not sure there's much else to it. Added a bit of clarification to my answer, and a reference to a similar situation with redhat –  Journeyman Geek Mar 30 '13 at 23:58
    
But, if the GNU project was also named IceWeasel, and, supposedly, had the same logo, then it was exactly the same thing - so there was no possibility for confusion. I think I'm still not quite following. –  einpoklum Mar 31 '13 at 7:54
    
They weren't - lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnuzilla/2007-09/msg00004.html via en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat#cite_note-notWeasel-2 - indicates they were never the same project –  Journeyman Geek Mar 31 '13 at 12:30

If a rebranding is an alternate distribution of software that may change

  1. Text
  2. Images
  3. Baked-in URLs (e.g., to alternate web stores)
  4. Easter eggs (usually, built-in pages)
  5. Scripts, plug-ins, etc.
  6. Configuration defaults

and nothing else (i.e., no changes to the "real" codebase), then

  • I believe that Icecat is just a rebranding: the point of the distribution is just to remove the contested Mozilla branding and to link the browser to a GNU-acceptable web store, but as far as I know, GNU uses the Firefox codebase faithfully;
  • However, Iceweasel is not just a rebranding: while the project is not really a fork, the point is to allow Debian to run their own security policy, which does involve applying their patches to the Firefox codebase and deciding whether to accept Mozilla patches. In fact it was Debian's security policy that led Mozilla to enforce its trademark and so create the need for an unbranded, DFSG-compliant Iceweasel. In the medium term, the Debian codebase tracks the Mozilla codebase, but with a substantial lag. Debian have not applied the auto-update code of Firefox to Mozilla, and I think it is not clear how they would go about that.
share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.