-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [rearranged slightly...] On Wednesday 16 April 2003 9:48 am, Trey Gruel wrote:
Previously, I wrote:
In other words, why do the Mozilla folks think they need a new name for their browser? Did someone crowd out their use of Mozilla as a name?
the phoenix bios company set their legal team against the phoenix browser [...] Yes, I read that part in the first part of the thread, but my question was why did they need a new name instead of MOZILLA in the first place? As it turns out, it seems you've answered it somewhat:
phoenix (the browser) is a standalone browser (no mail/news, composer, etc)
which is kind of the light-bulb I needed. I take it "hollywood" would have had a bit of a fit over calling it "mini-moz" :) [which, of course, would be the most accurate name/description -- I still don't see how they hit on the idea of "pheonix" in the first place, unless there is an in-the-works plan on scrapping the entire codebase...] - -- Yet another Blog: http://osnut.homelinux.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://osnut.homelinux.net/TomEmerson.asc iD8DBQE+nZSsV/YHUqq2SwsRAg8qAJ9vaZ3MilbQTtT0RiK+8MVoXcw6CQCfYXfM iGxZShwbaXDgNnlEeqHiSIA= =i817 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----