Waterfox - unofficial 64-bit version of Firefox

Submit portable freeware that you find here. It helps if you include information like description, extraction instruction, Unicode support, whether it writes to the registry, and so on.
Message
Author
User avatar
webfork
Posts: 9919
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Waterfox - unofficial 64-bit version of Firefox

#1 Post by webfork » Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:13 pm

[Moderator note: this thread was split from Pale Moon (another unofficial version of Firefox) so some posts reference both.]

---

Those interested in a CPU-optimized version of Firefox may also be interested in Waterfox, compiled for 64-bit CPUs. No portable version, but since the code is very similar, it seems one could easily be created.
Yes, the icon is far too similar to the official Firefox logo and probably not legal.

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon

#2 Post by JohnTHaller » Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:00 pm

Anything using either "Fire" or "fox" in the name is infringing on Mozilla's registered trademark by naming it too similarly. And the icon for Waterfox is just a modified version of the Firefox icon, so definitely infringement.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
m^(2)
Posts: 890
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:38 am
Location: Kce,PL
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon

#3 Post by m^(2) » Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:18 am

Anything using either "Fire" or "fox" in the name is infringing on Mozilla's registered trademark by naming it too similarly.
Really? Trademark law is not so specific. "Too similar" is entirely open to court's interpretation.
Though if I were a judge, I would probably find Waterfox infringing too.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 9919
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon

#4 Post by webfork » Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:05 pm

m^(2) wrote:
Anything using either "Fire" or "fox" in the name is infringing on Mozilla's registered trademark by naming it too similarly.
Really? Trademark law is not so specific. "Too similar" is entirely open to court's interpretation.
Though if I were a judge, I would probably find Waterfox infringing too.
Right. The IANAL acronym is important here.

The (admittedly vague) breakdown from cases I've followed is that if there is a chance that it could create confusion, its violating the law. Changing the icon color and the first part of the word of the program seems a bad way to declare a difference. Despite this, it is up to the intellectual property holder to move on this, which they certainly could. If Pepsi and Coke can both copyright individual colors and Chick-Fil-A can own the phrase "eat more ___" then I think Mozilla has an asteroid-proof case here.

For reasons I've gone into before, Mozilla is not and probably will not be litigious in this regard. Ask Oracle what developing a reputation for taking things to court has done for their PR. Fortunately there's a built-in balancing factor here: Waterfox is also subject to a community and that's very likely where this will all get worked out.

User avatar
m^(2)
Posts: 890
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:38 am
Location: Kce,PL
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon

#5 Post by m^(2) » Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:28 am

webfork wrote:The IANAL acronym is important here.
True.
IANAL either.

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 5959
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Waterfox

#6 Post by Midas » Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:42 pm

Although not portable (yet?) this specialized x64 Firefox fork is claiming to be even faster than Pale Moon: http://waterfoxproject.org/

freakazoid
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:45 pm

Re: Waterfox

#7 Post by freakazoid » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:27 am

Midas wrote:Although not portable (yet?) this specialized x64 Firefox fork is claiming to be even faster than Pale Moon: http://waterfoxproject.org/
It claims to be faster based on certain benchmarks:
http://waterfoxproject.org/benchmarks

Interesting results. According to their benchmarks, looks like native Firefox blows away both Waterfox and Pale Moon on V8.
is it stealth? ;)

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 5959
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Pale Moon

#8 Post by Midas » Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:02 am

What is V8? :roll:

The Sunspider results are peculiar, too...

User avatar
m^(2)
Posts: 890
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:38 am
Location: Kce,PL
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon

#9 Post by m^(2) » Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:31 pm

Waterfox was compiled with Intel's C++ Compiler with the following optimisations: Intel's Math Library, SSE3, AVX for supported Intel processors, jemalloc, Profile-Guided Optimisation and the /O3 switch.
Intel compiler is known to generate code that's crippled on non-Intel CPUs. There are fixes for this (patching the compiler or the binaries), but if you're using AMD or VIA or whatever, take care.

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 5959
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Pale Moon

#10 Post by Midas » Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:16 am

Waterfox 15 now supports a portable version... (untested!) Check http://waterfoxproject.org/downloads/

lautrepay
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:31 am

Re: Pale Moon

#11 Post by lautrepay » Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:16 am

Midas wrote:Waterfox 15 now supports a portable version... (untested!) Check http://waterfoxproject.org/downloads/
Not portable. Shares Firefox's profile in APPDATA.

freakazoid
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:45 pm

Re: Pale Moon

#12 Post by freakazoid » Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:23 pm

@webfork - Perhaps fork the Waterfox discussion into another thread? Starting from this post?
http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... 737#p44737
is it stealth? ;)

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 5959
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Pale Moon

#13 Post by Midas » Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:59 am

freakazoid wrote:@webfork - Perhaps fork the Waterfox discussion into another thread? Starting from this post?
http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... 737#p44737
I agree.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 9919
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Waterfox - unofficial 64-bit version of Firefox

#14 Post by webfork » Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:14 pm

freakazoid wrote:@webfork - Perhaps fork the Waterfox discussion into another thread? Starting from this post?
http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... 737#p44737
Good call

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 5959
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Waterfox - unofficial 64-bit version of Firefox

#15 Post by Midas » Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:01 am

Just a passing note to point that there seems to be a portable 15.0 version @ http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfo ... /portable/

Post Reply