this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
1935 points (99.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

9916 readers
2827 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Vintor@retrolemmy.com -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

they didn't create a fork under their control

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.

What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project.

You have described the creation of a fork.

... I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument.

I'm here if you wish to discuss further.