LibreWolf is not a fork, though. It’s a customised version of FF, so every shit they introduce has to be painstakingly removed by the LW team, provided that is even possible. (See Manifest V3 in Chrome.)
They duplicate the code, creating a “fork” under their control, and make independent changes to the code. That is all that is needed to satisfy the “fork” definition.
Interesting, because there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. Indeed, the workflow overview in their source repo clearly states that in order to build LibreWolf, you need the current Firefox source tree, and this is reflected in the Makefile, which fetches the Firefox source tarball associated with the same version. Nothing points to a repository they created at any prior point.
Can you link to some official statement that supports this claim?
They take Firefox, make changes to it, then release it. As such, it is a fork. More specifically a “soft fork” since they continue to pull changes from upstream (Firefox).
EDIT: Oh I see you’re focused on the “duplication of the code” part. A bad phrasing on my part. It doesn’t matter the specifics of how they pull in the source code, it is pulled in and used as the basis for librewolf’s modifications.
They could even pull it in on first launch and compile the latest version of Firefox with their modifications for subsequent launches and it would by all means be a fork, since they are shipping a modified version.
Ok, thanks for clarifying. I was asking for a statement in support of your initial claim that turned out to be completely wrong: they didn’t duplicate the code upon creation of the project, they didn’t create a fork under their control, and they don’t make independent changes to the code.
What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. If you really insist that that is a fork, then one of us doesn’t understand what a fork is, and I’m not going to continue a fruitless argument.
I’m sorry but this is simply incorrect (See 1,2,3), as I have previously stated. You could point to sources that agree with you though if you disagree.
I hope they consider making a hard fork in light of this news. I use it and it’s great. Perfect sweetspot of privacy, simplicity and “power tools”. Many people might not want the default automatic cookie clearing on exit, but you can easily disable it or, better yet, whitelist domains you want to stay logged into.
zipzap your wish is granted:
https://librewolf.net/
LibreWolf is not a fork, though. It’s a customised version of FF, so every shit they introduce has to be painstakingly removed by the LW team, provided that is even possible. (See Manifest V3 in Chrome.)
It’s literally impossible to maintain a modern browser without extreme funding and competent engineers
It’s not “literally” impossible, but it’s damn close.
It certainly is.
They duplicate the code, creating a “fork” under their control, and make independent changes to the code. That is all that is needed to satisfy the “fork” definition.
Interesting, because there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. Indeed, the workflow overview in their source repo clearly states that in order to build LibreWolf, you need the current Firefox source tree, and this is reflected in the Makefile, which fetches the Firefox source tarball associated with the same version. Nothing points to a repository they created at any prior point.
Can you link to some official statement that supports this claim?
A custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom.
This project is a custom and independent version of Firefox, …
LibreWolf is a free and open-source fork of Firefox, …
This repository contains all the patches and theming that make up LibreWolf, as well as scripts and a Makefile to build LibreWolf. There also is the Settings repository, which contains the LibreWolf preferences.
They take Firefox, make changes to it, then release it. As such, it is a fork. More specifically a “soft fork” since they continue to pull changes from upstream (Firefox).
EDIT: Oh I see you’re focused on the “duplication of the code” part. A bad phrasing on my part. It doesn’t matter the specifics of how they pull in the source code, it is pulled in and used as the basis for librewolf’s modifications.
They could even pull it in on first launch and compile the latest version of Firefox with their modifications for subsequent launches and it would by all means be a fork, since they are shipping a modified version.
Ok, thanks for clarifying. I was asking for a statement in support of your initial claim that turned out to be completely wrong: they didn’t duplicate the code upon creation of the project, they didn’t create a fork under their control, and they don’t make independent changes to the code.
What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. If you really insist that that is a fork, then one of us doesn’t understand what a fork is, and I’m not going to continue a fruitless argument.
I’m sorry but this is simply incorrect (See 1,2,3), as I have previously stated. You could point to sources that agree with you though if you disagree.
1: https://itsfoss.com/librewolf/
2: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/LibreWolf
3: https://lwn.net/Articles/1012453/
These are some examples that use “fork” in describing Librewolf.
You have described the creation of a fork.
I’m here if you wish to discuss further.
I hope they consider making a hard fork in light of this news. I use it and it’s great. Perfect sweetspot of privacy, simplicity and “power tools”. Many people might not want the default automatic cookie clearing on exit, but you can easily disable it or, better yet, whitelist domains you want to stay logged into.