You're absolutely right but attribution is still the core issue here. I clicked on the page because it seemed like a promising alternative to Firefox, and I expected the focus to be on how it differs from Firefox. Instead, I was surprised to see Firefox completely ignored, especially when the project is clearly built on its foundation and even borrows part of its name. It feels like a missed opportunity to acknowledge the very platform that made Waterfox possible in the first place. Transparency and credit matter, especially in open-source projects.
You aren't wrong, at all, but as mentioned I have run into issues with this in the past. I don't have enough income for the rigmarole Mozilla would put us through, even though I attempted in the past.
Thanks for keeping Waterfox alive despite Mozilla's hurdles. The feature list is great, exactly what people need when looking for a Firefox alternative. Putting it on the homepage would help a lot. Appreciate your work!
OOC, what's the nature of development? Is it the case that this browser is a set of patches you maintain on top of Firefox trunk, or do you have to do some surgery every time Firefox makes a release? Do you try to keep up with Firefox releases?
They aren't hiding the fact that they forked, so it's not dishonest. Nobody really expects a fork to never merge again from upstream. The point of it is increased privacy as opposed to improving the browser fundamentally anyway. I don't give a fuck if they do or don't say "we still merge from upstream btw" (and they did hard fork at some point, so I highly doubt they even try to keep up). This isn't a mere rebranding of Firefox to steal credit.
