On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 11:42 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Adam Williamson <awill...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> You have to remove MoFo's artwork and perform a name > >> change or you're required to get permission from Mozilla to > >> redistribute a modified binary. That's not free. > > > > Yes, it is.
> In a sense that you're "free" to do whatever Mozilla says, then yes, it's > free. No, in the sense that it meets the definition of software freedom. Which is what we ought to be talking about here, as a debate about 'freedom' as a philosophical concept is something I don't have time for this century. > > Practically speaking, it would add an extra burden to the maintainers, > > who already do not have enough resources to deal with all the issues. > > Again, the reason we don't carry non-upstream patches in Firefox has > > nothing to do with the branding issue. It's because we don't have the > > resources to maintain non-upstream patches in Firefox. > > Extra burden to do their assigned jobs? It's Fedora policy not to > include bundled libraries. They should already be removing bundled > libraries, and replacing those requirements with system libraries. > Just like with ALL OF THE OTHER PACKAGES which do not violate policy. > This isn't "extra", its "minimum". The only extra work they need to do > is maybe think of a name to call it instead of Firefox, and then > implementing the compile time switch. No forking, and it won't be hard > to stay with upstream because you're not forking you're just renaming > and making it use system libraries. Spot does this _by himself_ with > Chromium, which is a lot more advanced/complex than Firefox (Google is > known well for forking and bundling libs). I think you're unnecessarily muddying up a simple practical discussion (how do we go about getting these bundled libs removed) with overheated ideological rhetoric, and it really isn't helping anyone get anything done. > Sure but I hope its not spam: > I was wondering if Mozilla's trademark on the name Firefox makes the > software non free. According to Mozilla you can't redistribute your > own product called Firefox if you make changes to the source code, > unless you want to violate trademark law. > > I think this is a problem, and FSF people are now studying the > extent of similar restrictions. So, he doesn't actually answer the question, there. RH legal has asked the question before and got a direct yes/no answer, and the answer is no, it does not make the software non-free. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
