Comment 31 for bug 124933

Marcus from Flock dev reported a few interesting points that I think bear repeating here:
"'Sulfur' is not a code name, it is the the unbranded version you are looking for..

"I have expended effort in removing proprietary logos, images and text from this unbranded build, but that task is not complete. I also watch the commits to try to catch any hard-coding of the work "Flock" in new code...

"Note that it is not only Flock IP that may turn up, it is also Mozilla IP. Both need to be taken care of.

"While not related to branding, there is a second point worth mentioning: Ubuntu would like to package Flock as XULRunner application, to avoid repetitive inclusion of common code. Flock uses a modified XULRunner code base, which makes circumventing that redundancy non-trivial.

"Personally, I have always wanted to see a proper Ubuntu package for Flock; it's
just not that easy. I'm available and willing to help, but my primary
obligation is of course to do the things that Flock, the company, wants to see
move forward."

So it looks like what we need is:
1) An answer from MOTU on how they feel about divorcing flock-browser (let's be clear on referencing the package name henceforth "flock" is of course out of the question! ;) ) from XULRunner so that the customized XULRunner can coexist with the default library other XULRunner apps are using

2) Contributions to the Flock team by interested parties wanting to help root the IP out of the "Sulfur" (i.e., non-branded) build

3) ???

4) Profit!

I'm guessing from what's been said here that MOTU will want to refer this upstream, though I don't know how much interest there is at that level. I'm interested, but am way behind on the packaging side of things, and have a number of items on my plate as it is, so if anyone out there is up for stepping up to this, that'd be swell.