It doesn't make much sense to over-brand PureBrowser the way we currently are. It's campy and doesn't fit in with the rest of the system, which uses generic nouns for app names as per the GNOME convention.
I propose changing the name to a generic name. Potential options include
"Web" is probably not an option, because that's the display name of GNOME's Epiphany, and might cause confusion, especially once we adopt an icon in the new GNOME style.
copypasta from my comments in a Matrix room, but TL;DR let's just rebrand it back to Firefox, I'm pretty sure Mozilla will give us its blessing to do so.
there's been some discussion about this from users generally, and I double-checked the mozilla policy and GNU FSDG... it seems that mozilla's current trademark policy just requires us to ask them in an e-mail for permission to distribute Firefox, with a list of our modifications (we already have those in a pureos issue in maniphest)
so, although we may want to consider purebrowser being phased out, we can also likely brand it back to Firefox
I think when the decision was made was 2016 and the trademark requirements have changed
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/distribution-policy/
see "Modified Versions Require Prior Written Permission"
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
see the section on trademarks
"As long as the practical requirements are reasonable, however, free system distributions may include these programs, either with or without the trademarks."
....the practical downstream effects would fix some bugs for us if we, for ex, don't have to modify UA string
and for packaging, of course it would be simpler...
https://tracker.pureos.net/T147 <-- all issues related to this here
it's worth reading the announcement of renewed Ffx branding in Debian as well... I really think we just need to ask, which I'm happy to do.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815006
it's worth questioning our assumptions in cases like this, and luckily I had just been in a discussion about this very thing with a PureOS user, looked up the policy, and can't find anything restricting us from doing that. I will contact Mozilla on Friday trademark-permissions@mozilla.com if there are no objections, but it's best to let this sit for a while.
How is this issue different from T11?
It seems to me that it is the _exact_ same issue, just with focus on counter-arguments.
I contacted Mozilla late last night, and tried to make sure all parties affected were aware. I will let you all know what the reply is.
@sean.obrien @jonas.smedegaard so what's the situation with this now? Can we rename to Firefox or do we rename to a new generic name?