Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 01:42:21 +0200 Kevin Kofler wrote: > Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > Iceweasel as it currently exists in debian currently bundles exactly > > the same media libraries. > > CURRENTLY. > > The Debian Iceweasel maintainer has attached a patch to the upstream > bug which makes it use

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Matt McCutchen wrote: > On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 13:11 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> I tend to disagree, as including both Iceweasel and Icedove in addition >> to Firefox and Thunderbird gives users, admins and especially those that >> maintain a remix the option to easily chose the solution tha

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 13:11 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > I tend to disagree, as including both Iceweasel and Icedove in addition > to Firefox and Thunderbird gives users, admins and especially those that > maintain a remix the option to easily chose the solution that suites > their needs best.

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:38:29 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: > > I agree and this is exactly how the argument is going. People in FESCo > have made it clear via their meeting notes that the Firefox branding > is more important than following package guidelines. I'd encourage people who are int

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 01:39 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Adam Williamson wrote: >> > Er, really? I don't see where I offered any insult or un-excellent-ness. >> > I just meant it as a vaguely humorous way of wondering why Kevin was >> > repl

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Nonsense. > * Whenever somebody complains about the Firefox maintainers rejecting non- > upstream patches, they give the trademarks as the reason. > * Whenever somebody complains about the branding, they claim it doesn't > matter because we ar

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 01:39 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > Er, really? I don't see where I offered any insult or un-excellent-ness. > > I just meant it as a vaguely humorous way of wondering why Kevin was > > replying to an email I sent over a week ago in a discussion which

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Kevin Kofler wrote on 14.10.2010 00:36: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not >> simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹) > Because having both Iceweasel and Firefox in the repository, in addition to > bein

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Gregory Maxwell wrote: > Iceweasel as it currently exists in debian currently bundles exactly > the same media libraries. CURRENTLY. The Debian Iceweasel maintainer has attached a patch to the upstream bug which makes it use the system libvpx, we'd just need to apply that patch. And besides, ho

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Adam Williamson wrote: > Er, really? I don't see where I offered any insult or un-excellent-ness. > I just meant it as a vaguely humorous way of wondering why Kevin was > replying to an email I sent over a week ago in a discussion which I > thought had pretty much finished already. Because I don't

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 6:56:18 PM, Gregory wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 00:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>> >  * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not >>> > simply invested

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Hello Kevin, On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 5:30:52 PM, you wrote: > Well, normally it's the s390 arch team's job to fix the build on s390, and > they should have commit access to all packages, even Firefox. If that's not > the case, talk to the infrastructure team to get the required access. >

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 00:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> >  * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not >> > simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹) >> >>

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/13/2010 03:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Er, really? I don't see where I offered any insult or un-excellent-ness. > I just meant it as a vaguely humorous way of wondering why Kevin was > replying to an email I sent over a week ago in a discussi

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 00:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not > > simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹) > > Because having both Iceweasel and Firefox in the repository, in

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 15:32 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/13/2010 03:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 00:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> Adam Williamson wrote: > >>> I think you're unnecessarily muddying up a simpl

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not > simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹) Because having both Iceweasel and Firefox in the repository, in addition to being stupid by itself, would also mean shipping 2

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/13/2010 03:21 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > * Whenever somebody complains about the Firefox maintainers rejecting non- > upstream patches, they give the trademarks as the reason. Actually what I've seen from the maintainers is that they wouldn't tak

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/13/2010 03:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 00:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Adam Williamson wrote: >>> I think you're unnecessarily muddying up a simple practical discussion >>> (how do we go about getting these bundled l

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Adam Williamson wrote: > 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

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 00:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > 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 any

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Peter Jones wrote: > On 10/06/2010 10:08 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote: >> On 10/6/10, Matej Cepl wrote: >>> I won't comment on the trademark issue (because that's just pure >>> lunacy), but let me comment here "they don't accept my patches, so they >>> are non- free". That's just nonsense ... >> >> Y

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Adam Williamson wrote: > 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. Bullsh*t! He's explaining very precisely and fac

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

drago01 wrote: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: >> That's not free. > > It is, as you are _free_ to change the name and artwork anytime you want. But it's not free FOR US as long as we don't actually do that, because we're bound by the trademark policies, which is prevent

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Matej Cepl wrote: > No need to call it “political reasons” (on the side of MoFo) ... nowhere > in the definition of free software is written, that upstream has to > accept your patches. It may happen upstream (any upstream) disagrees with > your patch, you may not agree with them, but in the end it

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Peter Lemenkov wrote: > 2010/10/4 Martin Stransky : > >> FIXED UPSTREAM is a correct resolution for the bug, and it has been >> fixed by upstream and came to F13 in firefox 3.6.x. > > That's an absolutely great tactics to deal with bug reports! And > that's why I call proprietary Mozilla softwar

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Martin Sourada, Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:55:52 +0200: > but unless someone announces API/ABI changes, you'll notice them only > after someone fills a bug that your plugin does not work (yes, this is > precisely the kind of thing that could be caught by usual dependency > check if mozilla used properly v

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 13:40 +, Matej Cepl wrote: > Martin Sourada, Wed, 06 Oct 2010 22:39:00 +0200: > > But I have my doubts about > > mozilla in this regard, after all, proper support on linux does not seem > > to be high priority for them > > I just fell the urge to mention here > https://bu

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 13:40 +, Matej Cepl wrote: > Martin Sourada, Wed, 06 Oct 2010 22:39:00 +0200: > > But I have my doubts about > > mozilla in this regard, after all, proper support on linux does not seem > > to be high priority for them > > I just fell the urge to mention here > https://bu

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Martin Sourada, Wed, 06 Oct 2010 22:39:00 +0200: > But I have my doubts about > mozilla in this regard, after all, proper support on linux does not seem > to be high priority for them I just fell the urge to mention here https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577653#c6 and http://en.wikipedi

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 09:57 +0200, Martin Stransky wrote: > On 09/30/2010 08:54 PM, Sven Lankes wrote: > > 2. The combination of the Mozilla Trademark issue combined with the > > strict handling of patches by (corporate|distro)-maintainers (I don't > > think that this is a RH/Fedora issue -

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 10/06/2010 10:08 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > On 10/6/10, Matej Cepl wrote: >> I won't comment on the trademark issue (because that's just pure lunacy), >> but let me comment here "they don't accept my patches, so they are non- >> free". That's just nonsense ... > > Yes it is, that's not the iss

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

* Brandon Lozza [06/10/2010 16:28] : > > Yes it is, that's not the issue. They aren't letting us distribute it > ourselves, unless its brand is removed or we don't make those changes. It's their brand, they get to decide what they do (or let you do) with it. Emmanuel -- devel mailing list devel

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 10/6/10, Matej Cepl wrote: > I won't comment on the trademark issue (because that's just pure lunacy), > but let me comment here "they don't accept my patches, so they are non- > free". That's just nonsense ... Yes it is, that's not the issue. They aren't letting us distribute it ourselves, un

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote: > Ralf Corsepius, Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:01:09 +0200: >> Close source school of thinking - Trademarks exist to protect an >> enterprise's product and to close out "copyiers". FLOSS exists to enable >> people "to share". > > Nonsense, trademarks exists to prote

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Ralf Corsepius, Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:01:09 +0200: > Close source school of thinking - Trademarks exist to protect an > enterprise's product and to close out "copyiers". FLOSS exists to enable > people "to share". Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off somebody else br

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Florent Le Coz, Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:20:04 +0200: >> Trademark cannot be ever free as in freedom. > That's why Fedora should not ship Firefox, but Iceweasel, or Icecat, or > Minefield, or anything else that is not trademarked and isn't impossible > to patch without mozilla's consent. I won't comme

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 09:24, Brandon Lozza wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> > I'll refrain from replying further on until I have a reply from > Richard, but you're totally wrong and your love for Firefox is > blinding your principals (if you have any). You woul

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 11:46 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: > I don't blanket label everything with open code as "free software". > Some stuff bundles things which make it non-free. Code open-ness != > free. You can call Firefox open source if you want, but it's not free > software. You certainly hav

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 13:14 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > 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

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 08:22:57AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 08:34 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > that's the entire point of having trademarks. Free software projects are > > > obliged to allow you to access

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 02:56:34PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Kevin Kofler wrote on 02.10.2010 00:56: > > Sven Lankes wrote: > >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577653 > >> Looking at how rigorous new packages with bundled libs are fought we > >> should really stop shipping fir

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Adam Williamson 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, i

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > > > I don't blanket label everything with open code as "free software". > Some stuff bundles things which make it non-free. Code open-ness != > free. You can call Firefox open source if you want, but it's not free > software. > You claimed t

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 11:42 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Adam Williamson 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. > > > >

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >  On 10/05/2010 06:26 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question >> that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never >> bothered to ask it in public, but I'll do n

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Adam Williamson 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

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 08:34 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > that's the entire point of having trademarks. Free software projects are > > obliged to allow you to access and modify their code. They are not > > obliged to allow you to benefit f

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> that's the entire point of having trademarks. Free software projects are >> obliged to allow you to access and modify their code. They are not >> obliged to allow you to benefit from t

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 10/05/2010 06:26 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question > that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never > bothered to ask it in public, but I'll do now: > > * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 5 October 2010 15:51, Brandon Lozza wrote: > It really wouldn't be a fork at all. From what I can tell it's a build > flag that can be enabled or disabled and automatically takes out the > trademark and copyright artwork. People just don't want to remove the > branding because they presume they

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question > that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never > bothered to ask it in public, but I'll do now: > >  * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Kevin Kofler wrote on 02.10.2010 00:56: > Sven Lankes wrote: >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577653 >> Looking at how rigorous new packages with bundled libs are fought we >> should really stop shipping firefox and start shipping Iceweasel. > +1 > > I really don't see why the Firef

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > that's the entire point of having trademarks. Free software projects are > obliged to allow you to access and modify their code. They are not > obliged to allow you to benefit from their reputation. It doesn't make > any sense to say 'I thin

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 10/05/2010 12:37 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:08 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: >> >>> That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you >>> change the name, in which case you may loose brand reco

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 10/05/2010 12:37 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:08 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: > >> That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you >> change the name, in which case you may loose brand recognition. >> Imagine if Linus forbid people from calling their

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:08 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: > That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you > change the name, in which case you may loose brand recognition. > Imagine if Linus forbid people from calling their OS Linux if they > didn't use the binaries provided b

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 10/04/2010 11:35 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:24:30 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote: >>> Firefox doesn't just include source code. It includes intellectual >>> property with specific restrictions on what you're allowed to d

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Brandon Lozza wrote: >> Let's say I recompile Firefox and make a bunch of my own changes and >> REFUSE to change the name. How long do you think it'll take for >> Mozilla's lawyers to start threatening me with trademark lawsuits? > > In

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:35 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:24:30 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote: > >> Firefox doesn't just include source code. It includes intellectual > >> property with specific restrictions on what you'r

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Brandon Lozza wrote: > Let's say I recompile Firefox and make a bunch of my own changes and > REFUSE to change the name. How long do you think it'll take for > Mozilla's lawyers to start threatening me with trademark lawsuits? In that case, Red Hat lawyers should be visiting you soon. Fedora is a

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote: > On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:24:30 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote: >> Firefox doesn't just include source code. It includes intellectual >> property with specific restrictions on what you're allowed to do with >> it. > > Did you use the term "intellectu

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:24:30 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote: > Firefox doesn't just include source code. It includes intellectual > property with specific restrictions on what you're allowed to do with > it. Did you use the term "intellectual property" in your query to Richard too? :-) http://www.gnu.or

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Brandon Lozza  wrote: >>> >>> >>> That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you >>> change the name, in which case you may

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > Imagine if Linus forbid people from calling their OS Linux if they > didn't use the binaries provided by him. As the trademark owner it is his right to do so, but that alone does not make Linux unfree. You are confusing trademarks and copyr

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Brandon Lozza  wrote: >> >> >> That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you >> change the name, in which case you may loose brand recognition. >> Imagine if Linus forbid people from

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > > > That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you > change the name, in which case you may loose brand recognition. > Imagine if Linus forbid people from calling their OS Linux if they > didn't use the binaries provided

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > On 10/04/2010 03:34 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram  wrote: >>>   On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > So according to

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 10/04/2010 03:34 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free software? G

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Florent Le Coz wrote: >  On 04/10/10 15:23, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> Ignoring upstream and patching without consent is only feasible if you >> have the amount of resources to do a good job with that.  Fedora doesn't >> have that. >> >> Rahul > I'm not talking about

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > > > GNU Icecat doesn't tell you something? > > You said you are going to ask FSF. How about you just ask them if the presence of a trademark is enough to call software non-free and come back. Icecat was forked for other reasons (ie) for plug

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Matej Cepl wrote: > No need to call it “political reasons” (on the side of MoFo) ... nowhere > in the definition of free software is written, that upstream has to > accept your patches. It may happen upstream (any upstream) disagrees with > your patch, you may not a

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free >> software? Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with that >> interpretation. >> >> Rahul > I'm sure they will. Tr

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brandon Lozza  wrote: >> >> >> GNU Icecat doesn't tell you something? >> > > You said you are going to ask FSF.  How about you just ask them if the > presence of a trademark is enough to call software non-f

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >  On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>> So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free >>> software?  Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >  On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>> So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free >>> software?  Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010/10/4 Matej Cepl : > Peter Lemenkov, Mon, 04 Oct 2010 12:24:00 +0400: >> So no excuse here, please - just allow us fixing bugs. > > There is absolutely no permission required. Unfortunately you're talking (and the rest Fedora Mozilla team) about different task - you're talking about fixing Mo

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 04/10/10 15:23, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Ignoring upstream and patching without consent is only feasible if you > have the amount of resources to do a good job with that. Fedora doesn't > have that. > > Rahul I'm not talking about ignoring upstream. You can still work with them (reporting bug

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > el > > > > Fedora shouldn't include software it doesn't have the resources to > maintain. > Fedora doesn't have resources to fork it. Not the same thing at all. Rahul -- devel maili

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 10/04/2010 06:50 PM, Florent Le Coz wrote: > On 04/10/10 14:52, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> Trademark cannot be ever free as in freedom. > That's why Fedora should not ship Firefox, but Iceweasel, or Icecat, or > Minefield, or anything else that is not trademarked and isn't impossible > to pa

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 09:23 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free > > software? Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with that > > interpretation. > > > > Rahul > > I'm

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > > > However, Mozilla says that distributing a modified product with their > name violates Trademark law. > We have been through this before. If you take Fedora and modify it, you are not allowed to use the Fedora name either. Trademark can

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Matej Cepl wrote: > It would be really helpful if instead of calling programs > "unmaintainable" and similar non-sense you would research a bit what > really is the problem ... take a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ > buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&remaction=run&nam

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 06:22:23PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > We have been through this before. If you take Fedora and modify it, you are > not allowed to use the Fedora name either. Trademark cannot be ever free as > in freedom. That's reasonable. Fedora makes it easy for "downstream" distr

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 10/04/2010 10:50 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: > 2010/10/4 Martin Stransky: >> On 10/04/2010 10:24 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: >>> Anyway, the situation is worser then people believe, because no matter >>> how many maintainers MoFo apps have in Fedora - they just can't fix >>> bugs and close tickets,

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Peter Lemenkov, Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:22:24 +0400: > Unfortunately you're talking (and the rest Fedora Mozilla team) about BTW, just as a way of clarification, my rant was not targeted specifically at you, but everybody (and it is currently a big fashion) ranting against “proprietary” MoFo. No per

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010/10/4 Martin Stransky : > On 10/04/2010 10:24 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: >> Anyway, the situation is worser then people believe, because no matter >> how many maintainers MoFo apps have in Fedora - they just can't fix >> bugs and close tickets, even ones with clean and sane patches >> attached.

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Matej Cepl wrote: >> It would be really helpful if instead of calling programs >> "unmaintainable" and similar non-sense you would research a bit what >> really is the problem ... take a look at https://bugzill

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Martin Stransky wrote: > Right now, we are in process to redirect firefox/thunderbird crashes > directly to mozilla crash database (http://crash-stats.mozilla.com) > which is handled by mozilla guys, instead of our bugzilla, so they can > help us with all Fedora Firefox/Thunderbird crashes. > > An

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >  On 10/04/2010 06:50 PM, Florent Le Coz wrote: >>   On 04/10/10 14:52, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>>  Trademark cannot be ever free as in freedom. >> That's why Fedora should not ship Firefox, but Iceweasel, or Icecat, or >> Minefield, or anythin

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010/10/4 Martin Stransky : > FIXED UPSTREAM is a correct resolution for the bug, and it has been > fixed by upstream and came to F13 in firefox 3.6.x. That's an absolutely great tactics to deal with bug reports! And that's why I call proprietary Mozilla software as unmaintainable - you doesn't a

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 09/30/2010 08:54 PM, Sven Lankes wrote: > 2. The combination of the Mozilla Trademark issue combined with the > strict handling of patches by (corporate|distro)-maintainers (I don't > think that this is a RH/Fedora issue - same with Canonical/Ubuntu) > makes me feel uneasy about ff b

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 10/04/2010 10:24 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: > Anyway, the situation is worser then people believe, because no matter > how many maintainers MoFo apps have in Fedora - they just can't fix > bugs and close tickets, even ones with clean and sane patches > attached. Unfortunately you forget to attac

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

Peter Lemenkov, Mon, 04 Oct 2010 12:24:00 +0400: > In fact the backlog for Mozilla-related packages is even bigger, because > (due to the fact that MoFo products are unmaintainable at all) many of > them were closed automatically with new Fedora releases. It would be really helpful if instead of c

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010/10/4 Martin Stransky : > Please look at this list: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&component=firefox&product=Fedora&classification=Fedora > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_status=NEW&bug_s

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 10/04/2010 06:38 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 10/04/2010 02:52 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: >> >>> >>> However, Mozilla says that distributing a modified product with their >>> name violates Trademark law. >> We have been through this befo

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > We have been through this before.  If you take Fedora and modify it, you are > not allowed to use the Fedora name either.  Trademark cannot be ever free as > in freedom. > > Rahul Exactly the point I brought up Rahul, thanks for your irrelev

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > We have been through this before. If you take Fedora and modify it, you > are > > not allowed to use the Fedora name either. Trademark cannot be ever free > as > > in freedom. > > >

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 04/10/10 14:52, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Trademark cannot be ever free as in freedom. That's why Fedora should not ship Firefox, but Iceweasel, or Icecat, or Minefield, or anything else that is not trademarked and isn't impossible to patch without mozilla's consent. -- Florent Le Coz -- d

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

On 10/04/2010 02:52 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: > >> >> >> However, Mozilla says that distributing a modified product with their >> name violates Trademark law. >> > > We have been through this before. If you take Fedora and modify it, you are

  1   2   >