alt Hacker NewsBecause otherwise you can git clone Firefox , change it's name and call it a new browser.
I guess if we really get technical we could say you can fork, but need to independently implement updates going forward.
Because otherwise you can git clone Firefox , change it's name and call it a new browser.
I guess if we really get technical we could say you can fork, but need to independently implement updates going forward.
> you can fork
Progress!
> but need to independently implement updates going forward.
That's not needed either? But since you've provided no rationale, it's hard to point out where the mistake lies. What's wrong with using known code updates as long as you remove the anti-user parts?