* Mike Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On 2-Oct-06, at 2:02 AM, Conrad Knauer wrote: > > >On 10/1/06, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>> http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition- > >>policy.html > >>> > >>> One of the permitted changes is "Porting the software to > >>different operating systems" > >> > >>I'm not sure that's what that clause really means, but one easy > >>example is backported security fixes. Another is just regular bug > >>fixes that aren't in the official releases for whatever reason. > > > >Personally I would say that Debian packages with extra security and > >bug fixes would 'exceed the quality' of the official Mozilla packages > >and thus be a good example of what Community Editions are about: > > To my knowledge, Debian isn't including "extra" security fixes over > and above what we're shipping. If they are, that would possibly be > considered an act of bad faith between downstream and upstream, > unless the security bug was Debian specific. This type of potential > "Firefox from foo is better than Firefox from bar" comparison is > something we have explicitly avoided.
As pointed out many times, we've had to backport security fixes ourselves into 1.0.4 because security support has dropped for the 1.0 branch. So whether that's "extra" or not, I don't know. Even if we added a security patch that the original version didn't have I don't see how we could act in bad faith. Even if we somehow neglected to file a bug report on it, it's not like we could hide the fact that we had added the patch from you. > The Community Editions policy is possibly unclear, but it's really > talking about porting to BeOS or SkyOS or some other unsupported OS. > There is no provision for patching the source code otherwise. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
